The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e) with respect to her treatment of an autistic child in her classroom. If so, then the appropriate penalty for her conduct must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher in the State of Florida. She holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 952211, covering the areas of elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and exceptional student education. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 2016. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) teacher at Maplewood. Ms. Newton has been involved in teaching in Marion County since 1999. She started as a teaching assistant, then substitute taught while putting herself through school, then obtained her bachelor’s degree in varying exceptionalities and began teaching full time. She also received her master’s degree in 2007 in the area of interdisciplinary studies in curriculum and instruction. With the exception of an internship at Oak Crest Elementary, all of Ms. Newton’s teaching experience was at Maplewood. Her performance evaluations from the 2004-2005 school year through the 2012-2013 school year all contain at least satisfactory ratings, with the majority of the recent evaluations rating her as highly effective or outstanding, depending on the evaluation tool used. The majority of her evaluations reference her excellent classroom management skills. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, Maplewood received an entirely new administrative team. Laura Burgess was the new principal, Claire Smith and Brian Greene were newly- appointed assistant principals, and Doris Tucker was the new dean. The new administration started at Maplewood in July, approximately a month before the beginning of the school year. Ms. Newton had been teaching and continued to teach autistic students. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned six students in her self-contained classroom, and had the assistance of one teacher’s aide, Susanne Quigley. Ms. Newton believed strongly in the value of a structured, disciplined classroom, especially when dealing with autistic students. She believed that establishing the rules and routine for the classroom created an environment where any child could be taught, but that without structure and adherence to routine, chaos would result and impair the learning process. Her classroom management skills were well known and in past years, well respected. Both Ms. Newton and Ms. Quigley testified about the assistance she was asked to give to other teachers and students with respect to class management and discipline. Their testimony is credited. After the start of the school year but before September 3, 2013, Laura Burgess, Maplewood’s principal, was notified by the Social Services Education Team (SET team) for the District that Maplewood would be receiving a new student, B.L., who had moved to the area from North Carolina. She also received an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for B.L., which listed his disability as autism spectrum disorder. B.L.’s IEP also indicated that he had problematic behaviors that could impede his learning, including oppositional defiance disorder, tantrums, attention deficit disorder, and extreme violence. The documentation provided to her did not include a behavioral intervention plan, and Ms. Burgess was concerned that B.L.’s placement at Maplewood did not match the needs identified in the IEP. However, she determined that Ms. Newton’s class would be the best placement for B.L., because Ms. Newton had a reputation for having a structured and disciplined classroom, and perhaps B.L. would benefit from that kind of structure. Ms. Burgess saw Ms. Newton that morning and told her that she would be receiving a new student. Ms. Burgess described the issues with the child, and said that if he ended up in Ms. Newton’s class, she should document his behaviors in case he needed to be moved to a therapeutic unit for behaviors (TUB unit). Ms. Newton understood from the conversation that Ms. Burgess believed B.L. should be in a TUB unit, which did not exist at Maplewood. However, later in the day Ms. Newton and her aide, Susanne Quigley, were supervising her students on the playground when she was approached by Claire Smith, one of the new assistant principals. Ms. Smith informed her that B.L. would indeed be placed in her class and gave her a copy of his IEP, with certain portions related to his behavior highlighted. Ms. Newton expressed surprise at the placement, thinking that he would be going to the TUB unit. Ms. Smith had met with B.L. and his mother earlier in the day and felt that he could benefit from Ms. Newton’s structured classroom. She also talked to Ms. Newton about documenting his behaviors should a change be necessary. Ms. Newton was concerned about the addition to her classroom because she already had six autistic students and, with respect to B.L.’s identified behaviors, “we’ve never had a child like that at Maplewood.” Nonetheless, B.L. was placed in her classroom on September 3, 2013. Consistent with her usual practice, Ms. Newton began to teach B.L. the rules of her classroom. For the first two days, there were no major problems. There were instances where B.L. did not want to comply with the directions she gave him or follow the rules of the classroom, but with some coaxing, she was able to get him to comply. Ms. Newton did not see the need to call the front office for assistance on either of the first two days B.L. was in her classroom, but then, Ms. Newton had never called the front office for assistance with any child. At the end of the first day, she had the opportunity to speak with B.L.’s mother briefly when she picked him up from school. After Ms. Newton introduced herself, B.L.’s mother basically confirmed the contents of the IEP. According to what B.L.’s mother told Ms. Newton, B.L. had lived previously with his father and there had been issues both at school and at home with disruptive and violent behavior. Ms. Newton told her they were going to “wipe the slate clean” and asked if there was anything that B.L.’s mother wanted Ms. Newton to work on, and she identified B.L.’s behaviors as an area for improvement. Ms. Newton told B.L.’s mother that Maplewood was a great school, and “that would happen.” B.L.’s third day at Maplewood did not go well. At the very beginning of the day, B.L. would not follow directions to stand with the rest of his classmates at their designated spot after getting off the bus. Instead, he plopped down in the middle of the walkway, in the midst of the area where children were trying to walk to their classes. He had to be coaxed all along the way to get to class, and once there, refused to unpack and sit down. He refused to follow any direction the first time it was given, instead responding with shuffling feet, shrugging shoulders, talking back, calling names, and wanting to lay his head down on his desk instead of participate in class. When it was time for the students in the class to go to art, Ms. Quigley normally took them while Ms. Newton attended to other responsibilities. According to Ms. Quigley, B.L. did not want to go to art class, and had to be coaxed to walk with the others to the art room. Once he got there, he did not follow directions, did not want to participate, and did not want to move from the back of the room. Normally, Ms. Quigley might have let him stand and watch if he remained quiet, but he was not being quiet: he was touching things and grumbling and getting angry. Ms. Quigley knew from prior experience that students with autism tend to mimic the bad behavior exhibited by others, and one child’s actions could cause a chain reaction of bad behaviors. She felt that if she did not remove him from the art room, the other children would also start to misbehave, and she did not want them to follow B.L.’s example. Ms. Quigley took B.L. out of the art classroom and went back to the classroom in search of Ms. Newton. Ms. Newton was not in the classroom, as she was attending to other responsibilities. Ms. Quigley then took B.L. to the office, but again, found no one there to assist her. B.L. was not happy during any of these travels, and again had to be coaxed all along the way. Once she got back to the art class, Ms. Quigley had B.L. stand in the back of the classroom. She was trying to watch him and also attend to the other students, but one of the other students knocked everything off the art table, so Ms. Quigley added clean-up to her responsibilities. At that point, Ms. Newton came into the art room. Ms. Newton took both B.L. and the other misbehaving child back to the classroom while Ms. Quigley stayed with the remaining students for the rest of the art period. What remained of the afternoon became a battle of wills between Ms. Newton and B.L.: Ms. Newton was trying to establish the ground rules for behavior in her classroom with B.L., and B.L. was determined not to follow those rules. The result was Ms. Newton spending the bulk of the afternoon with B.L. and Ms. Quigley attending to the needs of the other students in the class. For at least part of this time, Ms. Newton placed B.L. in time-out, with directions that he was to stand still with his hands to his sides. For Ms. Newton, the purpose of time-out is for a student to gather his or her thoughts, to get himself or herself together, and to remind the student of the rules of the classroom. She wants a student to have time to think about his or her actions, and wants to discuss with the student the nature of the problem presented by his or her behavior and how the problem should be resolved. If a child stops behaving, time-out may begin again. Ms. Newton put B.L. in time-out because he was not following her directions to him. She talked to B.L. about the rules of the classroom and where they are posted in the room, and told him what he needed to do. B.L. is very verbal and able to talk about his issues. Ms. Quigley described him as very high-functioning and not on the same level as other children in the classroom. Instead of responding appropriately, B.L. was calling names, talking out, and using curse words; flailing his arms and legs, wrapping himself in his sweatshirt so that his arms were in the body of the sweatshirt as opposed to in the armholes, and covering his face so that he could not see obstacles in his environment; wandering around instead of staying still; kicking things in the classroom, including a box and a door; throwing objects on the floor, rolling around on the floor and spitting; and generally resisting any instruction. During the course of the afternoon, Ms. Newton attempted to show B.L. what she wanted from him. For example, she demonstrated how she wanted him to stand in time-out by holding his arms in the area close to his wrists to demonstrate standing still with his hands down. B.L. repeatedly resisted this direction and tried to break away from Ms. Newton. B.L. was not only resisting her, but at times appeared to be butting his head against her and kicking her. He was at other times rubbing his hands against his face. Ms. Newton told B.L. he needed to stop rubbing his hands over his face, or she would remove his glasses so that he did not hurt himself with them. When B.L. continued his resistant behaviors, she removed his glasses and eventually put them in his backpack. B.L. continued to lightly slap his face with both hands. Ms. Newton did not physically intervene, but testified that she gave B.L. consistent verbal direction to stop hitting himself. Although he clearly continued to slap his face for some time, Ms. Newton testified that the movement was more like a pat than a slap, and she did not believe that he was hurting himself. Her testimony is credible, and is accepted. Ms. Newton also told B.L. to quit flailing his arms and putting his jacket over his head. She was concerned that he could hurt himself given that he was standing (not still, as directed) near the corner of a table. Ms. Newton told him if he did not stop she would take his jacket from him. He did not and she removed his jacket and placed it on a table in the classroom. She did not give B.L. the jacket back when he wanted it, because she wanted B.L. to understand that there are consequences to not following directions. With approximately 30 minutes left to the school day, Ms. Newton asked Ms. Quigley to call the front office for assistance. Ms. Tucker, the dean at Maplewood, came to her classroom. Before Ms. Tucker’s arrival, Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to stand in the back of the room. He was not following directions and had gone over to sit in a chair near the center of the room. The chair was near a free-standing easel with teaching implements attached to it, and it is reasonable to assume, given B.L.’s behavior, that Ms. Newton did not want him near the easel because of the potential for harm. Each time he went to the seat, Ms. Newton directed him away from it. When Ms. Tucker arrived, he once again sat in the chair he had been directed not to use. Ms. Newton removed him from the chair and told him again he was not to sit in it. B.L. immediately went to another chair in the same vicinity and sat down. Ms. Newton, took him by the arm and away from the chair, and took him out of the room. From Dean Tucker’s perspective, B.L. was just trying to sit in a chair. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, this was just one more instance in a litany of instances where B.L. was refusing to follow her directions. Dean Tucker was outside the room with B.L. when the door closed. B.L. starting kicking and beating on the door, screaming that he wanted in, and opened the door. Ms. Newton placed her arm on his chest and pushed against him to keep him from entering the room, and asked Ms. Tucker to lock the door from the outside, which she did. B.L. continued to kick and beat at the door, and Dean Tucker called assistant principal Greene to assist her. When Mr. Greene arrived, B.L. was still kicking at the door. He kept saying that he wanted in the classroom but would not say why. Eventually Mr. Greene was able to calm B.L. enough to find out that he wanted his backpack. Because it was close to the end of the day, Mr. Greene took B.L. to the office but instructed Ms. Tucker to retrieve his backpack from Ms. Newton’s classroom. Ms. Tucker returned to Ms. Newton’s classroom to retrieve the backpack. Ms. Newton expressed frustration at the decision to return the backpack to B.L., saying that meant “he won.” From Ms. Tucker’s and Mr. Greene’s perspectives, returning the backpack to him made sense, in part because they were not aware of the exchange related to the backpack earlier, and in part because it was close to the end of the day and B.L. would not be returning to the classroom that day. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, the backpack had been taken from B.L. because she had told him she would take it if he did not comply with her directives, and he did not do so. She felt that returning the backpack to him at that point was ensuring that B.L. had no consequences for his bad behavior. After completing their end-of-day responsibilities, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker returned to the classroom to speak to Ms. Newton about B.L. Ms. Newton told them that he had been out of control all day, kicking boxes, pushing chairs, and a danger to himself and others. She stated that it was only B.L.’s third day in the classroom and it would take some time to live up to expectations, but that he knew the rules and knew how to follow them. Mr. Greene felt that Ms. Newton was clearly upset with both him and Ms. Tucker with respect to how B.L. was handled. Ms. Newton asked whether B.L.’s parent had been called, and felt that his parent should have been contacted as part of addressing B.L.’s behavior. After speaking to Ms. Newton, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker pulled the videotape for the afternoon in Ms. Newton’s classroom. After scanning through the tape, Mr. Greene went to Ms. Burgess and asked her to view it because the tape’s contents concerned him. Once she did so, Ms. Burgess called Lisa Krysalka, the head of human resources for the District, and after discussion with her, called both the Department of Children and Families and the local sheriff’s office. She also spoke to Ms. Newton and told her she was to report to the District office the following day, and called B.L.’s parent. Rose Cohen investigated the matter for the District, which included speaking to Ms. Burgess, Mr. Greene, Ms. Newton, Suzanne Quigley, and a Ms. Ballencourt, and watching the video. Adrienne Ellers, the lead behavior analyst for the District, was asked to watch the video and to identify any deviations from the TEACH program for student management accepted by the District. Ms. Cohen recommended to the superintendent that Ms. Newton’s employment be terminated, and the superintendent presented that recommendation to the School Board. Ms. Newton appealed the recommendation and a hearing was held before the School Board, which included a viewing of the video of her classroom. The School Board rejected the superintendent’s recommendation for termination by a 3-2 vote. However, Ms. Newton did not return to Maplewood. No evidence was presented to indicate that the Department of Children and Families determined that there was any basis for a finding of child abuse or neglect. Likewise, no evidence was presented indicating that law enforcement took any action against Ms. Newton. There was also no evidence to indicate that B.L. was harmed. The focus of much of the evidence in this case dealt with the video from Ms. Newton’s classroom. The video, Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, is approximately two hours long. It is from a fixed position in the classroom and it shows some, but not all, of Ms. Newton’s classroom. It has no sound. There are parts of the video where, due to lighting deficiencies and similar skin color tones, it is difficult to tell exactly what is transpiring. There are also times when either Ms. Newton or B.L., or both, are not fully within the view of the camera, and sometimes they are not visible at all. With those parameters in mind, the video does show some of the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L. What is clear from the video is that Ms. Newton spends a great deal of time talking to B.L., and that she remains calm throughout the day. B.L. does appear to comply with direction for short periods in the video, but never for very long. The video shows Ms. Newton holding B.L. by the arms; pulling him up both by the torso and by his arms; removing (but not “snatching”) his eyeglasses; removing his jacket with some resistance from him; blocking his access to his jacket; and kicking his backpack away from his reach. It also shows B.L. kicking items in the room, including a large box near where he is standing; rolling around on the floor; flailing his arms and legs around when he is clearly being directed to be still; and generally resisting any attempt at correction. The video also shows that during the time Ms. Newton is focused on B.L., the other students are engaged in learning, and Ms. Quigley is able to work with them without assistance. The Administrative Complaint alleges that “Respondent and B.L. engaged in a tussle which resulted in B.L. falling to the ground.” A more accurate description would be that B.L. resisted Ms. Newton’s attempts to show him how she wanted him to stand, and in his struggling, he went to the ground. It appeared to the undersigned that Ms. Newton was attempting to prevent his going down, but was unable to do so safely. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent “grabbed B.L. by the back of the neck and gripped B.L.’s neck for approximately 10 seconds.” A more accurate description would be that Respondent placed her hand at the back of B.L.’s neck and guided him with her hand at the base of his neck for approximately 10 seconds. She did not grab him by the neck or hold him that way; it appeared that she was protecting him from falling backwards, as he pulled away from her. Respondent did not, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, drag B.L. across the floor. She did attempt to get B.L. to stand one of the many times that he flopped on the floor, and he resisted her attempt. In that process, the two of them did move across the floor a short distance, which appeared to be due to B.L.’s pulling away from her, but she was not dragging him across the floor. All of Ms. Newton’s actions were taken in an effort to either instill the rules of the classroom in order to create for B.L. an atmosphere for learning, or to prevent harm to either herself, B.L., or property in the classroom. Ms. Quigley, who was present in the classroom during most of the interchange depicted on the video, was more focused on the other students in the class than she was on B.L. She has seen a portion of the video since the incident. Ms. Quigley recalls hearing parts of the conversation between B.L. and Ms. Newton, and testified that Ms. Newton never lost control with B.L., and understood from what she heard that Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to follow the rules. Nothing Ms. Quigley saw or heard caused her any concern. Barbara O’Brien and Christine Spicoche are both parents of former students who testified on Ms. Newton’s behalf. Both acknowledged that they had not seen the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L.,2/ but both have been in her classroom on numerous occasions during the years that their children spent with Ms. Newton: Ms. O’Brien’s son was in Ms. Newton’s class for six years, while Ms. Spicoche’s son was there for three years. Both expressed a great deal of gratitude for the positive effect Ms. Newton and her teaching methods have had on their sons’ lives. With respect to both children, the mothers testified that their sons went from children who were out-of-control to children who were able to function appropriately both in the classroom and in other places. As stated by Ms. Spicoche, “It would be best for him to be at a strong hand of a loving teacher who cares, who wants the best for him than being at the fist of the legal system later.” At all times, Ms. Newton’s focus was to establish the rules of the classroom so that B.L., like the other students in her classroom, would be able to learn. B.L. was different from the other students in her classroom, and she admitted he was a challenge. However, Ms. Newton’s actions in this case are consistent with her general philosophy for teaching: to be firm, fair, and consistent at all times. Ms. Newton believes that if you do not follow these principles, you have chaos in the classroom, and where there is chaos, no one is learning. With a disciplined, structured environment, Ms. Newton believes every child can learn, and the atmosphere observed in her classroom is consistent with her philosophy. Ms. Burgess chose Ms. Newton’s classroom for B.L. precisely because of her reputation as having a disciplined structured classroom. However, in her view, Ms. Newton should have just given B.L. his backpack when he wanted it; should have given him his glasses; should have let him just walk around the room when he wanted to; and should have just let him kick the door, rather than ever putting a hand on him. Ms. Burgess did not explain (nor was she asked) how many children in the classroom should be allowed to do what B.L. was doing, and whether learning could still take place should each of the children be allowed to wander, kick, and be disruptive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 25th day of November, 2015.
The Issue The issues for consideration here are those associated with an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent for certain alleged deficiencies related to the operation of the Respondent nursing home facility. Authority for this prosecution is set out in Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Related to this case, Respondent was licensed by the Petitioner to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) known as Elder Care Retirement Home, located in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. Lon W. Walters is president of that corporation and owns the corporation with his wife. Petitioner, in accordance with Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code, has regulatory authority over the ACLF. On November 8, 1988, Robert A. Cunningham, Human Services Program Analyst for Petitioner, performed the annual inspection of the subject facility as a prelude to relicensure. He found a number of deficiencies in the facility's operations. Four of those have relevance to this case. Through the course of an exit interview conducted with Nancy Carter, who was the administrator at the ACLF and its agent, Respondent was made aware of the deficiencies. In her capacity Carter hired staff, reviewed and screened residents for admission and admitted those residents, supervised the staff, and was responsible for record keeping. The deficiencies were that: Respondent had failed to provide or make available for review documentation that the facility administrator or his/her designee had completed a Core training program. Respondent failed to assure that a sufficient number of staff members were certified in an approved first aid course. Respondent failed to provide documentation that staff members were free from apparent signs and symptoms of communicable disease. Respondent failed to assure that all residents' files contained complete health assessment forms. The items that were discussed with the administrator were not confirmed by any written submission to the administrator on that occasion. The record does rot reflect to what extent Carter recorded information about the subject deficiencies and others in an attempt to prepare responses to those problems. She did tell Cunningham that Mr. Walters was going to take the Core training and there was a negotiation or discussion about the deadlines for that training and other items that needed to be corrected. Typically, as many as sixty days may be allowed for a facility to establish necessary corrections. On November 8, 1988, Cunningham spoke to Walters about the Core training and the due date for completion of that training, and it was agreed that the due date would be February 28, 1989. Pursuant to the discussion in the exit conference, arrangements were made for a January 18, 1989, deadline to complete corrections in the three other deficiency areas. There was some delay in preparing the written summary of findings made by Mr. Cunningham. Nonetheless, those findings were committed to writing by a report of January 23, 1989, associated with the relicensure survey. A transmittal letter which was sent out to the Respondent included a document entitled "Classification of Deficiencies for ACLF Licensure Requirements" which set out the four deficiencies in question and others. It also set forth the correction deadlines and included a citation to the appropriate administrative rules that had allegedly been violated by the deficiencies. Based upon the observations by Mr. Cunningham at the time of the November 8, 1988, inspection and as confirmed by the classification report of January 23, 1989, at the time the inspection was conducted neither the administrator nor a designee had taken the necessary Core training. This point is conceded in remarks by Mr. Walters in his testimony at hearing. Likewise, the records of the facility on the date of inspection did not demonstrate that one staff member at the facility on all shifts had necessary first aid training in an approved course. The records available on November 8, 1988, did not reveal that all staff persons were free from communicable disease as documented by a physician or ARNP. This pertained to nine staff persons. Finally, on the inspection date the facility did not have records on file for two residents indicating that a medical examination of those residents had been completed within sixty days prior to the admission of those residents to the facility or that a health assessment form had been completed within thirty days after admission of those two residents. Cunningham returned to the facility on January 25, 1989. At that time he discovered that none of the four items had been corrected. It should be mentioned that the item pertaining to Core training was not due for correction by that date. In a conversation with Mr. Walters on January 25, 1989, Walters reported that he had not received a copy of the statement of deficiencies that had been issued on January 23, 1989. Under those circumstances, Cunningham told Walters that he would be back at a later date to make a further inspection to ascertain whether the corrections had been effected. Nonetheless, he reminded Walters that the due date for correcting some items had expired. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence is a copy of a statement of acknowledgment of receipt of the report that was issued on January 23, 1989. It is signed by Mr. Walters and dated January 31, 1989. On February 15, 1989, Cunningham returned to the facility and through his inspection discovered that none of the four items in question had been corrected. In effect, between November 8, 1988, and February 15, 1989, Respondent had failed to correct the problems. More significantly, it had failed to correct the problems by the deadlines to which it had agreed, excepting the Core training. By way of history, on December 9, 1987, a relicensure inspection was performed at the facility, and it was discovered that a resident within the facility had been placed there without the benefit of an examination to ascertain whether that person was free from signs of infectious disease. This led to an administrative complaint, a formal hearing, a recommended order, and final order, fining this facility in the amount of $150, in the aforementioned DOAH Case NO. 89-2058. Based upon the four deficiencies that were uncorrected on February 15, 1989, the Administrative Complaint which is PDRL No. I 89-1120 ACLF was drawn.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which imposes an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $750, for the three violations that have been proven, and which dismisses any action against the Respondent for alleged failure to complete the Core training program. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 9th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed facts are commented on as follows: Paragraphs 1-3 are subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence within paragraph 3 which is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 4-7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found in that the obligation to take the Core training between November 8, 1988, and February 15, 1989, was not incumbent upon the Respondent. Paragraphs 9 through 14 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District III Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Lon W. Walters 3223 West Forest Lake Circle Sarasota, Florida 33429 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact James D. Alford, III, was initially employed by the Board of Education in the Public Schools of Duval County, Florida during January of 1973. Respondent holds teacher's certificate no. 333009, graduate, rank 3 and is a graduate of Tuskegee Institute where he received a B.S. Degree in Industrial Arts. For approximately two and one-half years subsequent to January, 1973, he was assigned to southside Junior High School as an Industrial Arts Special Education Teacher in a pilot program. It appears that there is no difference in the qualification required for teachers of industrial arts in special education programs as opposed to other industrial arts teachers that are certified in industrial arts. In addition to his employment with the Duval County School Board, Respondent served in a student teacher training program for nine weeks in Montgomery, Alabama. Respondent, during his assigned duties for the Duval County School Board, taught a special education industrial arts class consisting of seventh, eighth and ninth grade students. He trained students how to safely use tools and to perform projects requiring the use of industrial arts tools. He assigned students projects based on their manipulative skills. He noted that "special ed" students had to be trained to use even the simplest tools such as hand saws. Respondent testified that discipline was a major problem in teaching "special ed" students and that for the first and/or minor offense, he attempted to discipline students by verbal commands and that when that failed he sent students to the Dean's Office. He denied ever using physical force to punish students for unruly conduct. His testimony is that his only physical contact with students was to restrain them from physical acts and it suffices to say that he denied all of the allegations filed by the Council in its petition to revoke his teaching certificate. Respondent was aware of the Board's policy respecting discipline and testified that he never administered corporal punishment to students. Following altercations with two students during late 1974, Respondent was offered transfers on at least two occasions which he declined because he "had recently received approximately $5,000.00 of new shop equipment" and further that he wanted to remain at Southside for a sufficient period in order to administer in a smooth and efficient manner the special ed industrial arts program at Southside. The first significant incident involving the Respondent occurred during December of 1974 during an altercation with one of his students i.e., Gary Roary. According to Respondent, Roary initially hit him whereupon he retaliated by striking him back. Roary then left the room, picked up a two by four and returned to the classroom where Roary attempted to hit Respondent. Respondent, in an effort to snatch the two by four from Roary, shoved him causing him to fall on a saw. Roary sustained an injury which required three sutures at the emergency room at a local hospital. Respondent states that he did not know that Roary had injured himself until he was later called to the office where he was told to meet with Mr. Buford Galloway. The Principal, J. R. McDaniel, investigated the incident involving Gary Roary and concluded that Respondent was "rather rough with Gary". See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. Respondent testified that the incident occurred during a demonstration of a "boomerang" that he had constructed to motivate students to make one. He first threw the boomerang and then a student threw it. When the student threw the boomerang, it struck a teacher's car which resulted in a scratch. One of the students relayed this information to the teacher involved, Ms. Williams, whose car was parked near the shop area. A brief uproar resulted when the boomerang struck Ms. William's car and Respondent grabbed Willie Critton, another student by the front of his shirt. Roary yelled for Critton to hit Respondent and evidence revealed that Respondent retorted by saying "hit me, hit me," when Roary said "hit him". Respondent released Critton and grabbed Roary and this brought about the above incident in which Roary sustained the cut. Respondent admits to pushing Roary and striking him on the right shoulder stating that this was done in self- defense. He acknowledged that it was probably a mistake for him to hit Roary. Following this incident, Respondent was transferred to another school for the remainder of the school term. Marilyn Bagby, a program coordinator for mentally retarded for the Duval County School Board testified that she has known Respondent since 1972, and that during a visit to one of his classes, she saw a student roaming the hallway in front of his class. She testified generally that she was able to determine that students had been left out in the hall for periods up to approximately three weeks. However Mrs. Bagby was not specific in her testimony respecting these incidents and for these reasons, little weight can be attached to her testimony. Lowell T. Hudson, Industrial Arts Superintendent for the Duval County School Board, testified that the Respondent's class was properly equipped and that during his visits to Respondent's class, he noticed discipline problems. Mr. Hudson was involved in one conference concerning the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent and during a subsequent incident, Respondent was transferred. Joseph R. McDaniels, the Prinicpal at Southside High for approximately four years and an employee for approximately 19 years testified respecting approximately five conferences concerning Respondent and his disciplinary techniques. On three of these conferences, he wrote memos respecting the details of such conferences. He explained the City wide disciplinary policy to Respondent and cautioned him against using corporal punishment to discipline students. He recalled that two conferences occurred during May of 1974 and a third conference occurred during December of 1974. Ms. Eleanor Williams, the instructor whose car was struck by the boomerang which was thrown by one of Respondent's students, testified that Respondent assisted her on one occasion in a dispute with a student who was fighting another student. Respondent requested that Ms. Williams go to his office to obtain his stick which she refused and thereafter he asked the students to go get his stick. She testified that one student who was involved in the altercation had a paring knife. Respondent, in an effort to break up the students, swung at one student and missed striking a refrigerator and a bread box resulting in a dent in the refrigerator of approximately eight inches. Respondent, according to Ms. Williams, never requested that the students stop fighting. Instead Respondent kicked one of the students, Tim Walden, and Don Jones, the other student who was involved was struck in his face. At that time, several instructors were summoned who restrained Respondent from further hitting the students. 1/ Willie J. Critton, a 16 year old eleventh grade student attended shop classes with Respondent during his eighth grade school year. He testified that on numerous occasions, Respondent bent his fingers back and twisted his fingers. He further testified that it was common practice for Respondent to expel students from his class room and force them to stand outside in the hallway. Gary Roary was called and testified substantially as other witnesses who gave testimony on the boomerang incident during December of 1974. Specifically, he testified that Respondent hit Willie Critton and thereafter grabbed him. During the above incident, he was shook by Respondent and struck in the mouth. When he broke away from Respondent, he left the classroom, obtained a stick and entered the room. Upon his return, he swung at Respondent and fell when Respondent shoved him and his head struck a saw. This resulted in the cut referred to above which required three stitches. Betty Allison, a qualified expert in mental retardation, testified that while discipline is a problem in teaching EMR students (Educable Mentally Retarded), she objected to the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent calling them inappropriate in EMR situations. She testified that to be effective, EMR instructors must devise well organized lesson plans and that classroom instruction must be motivating in order to secure and retain the students' attention. Other witnesses testified that EMR students cause more discipline problems than others and generally testified that Respondent was effective as most instructors in teaching EMR students. Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, 1975, empowers the Department of Education to suspend or revoke a valid Florida Teaching Certificate held by an individual who is committing or has committed certain acts or omissions which justify revocation or suspension on grounds enumerated in the statute. One of the grounds as provided in the statute exist when the teacher, upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. Here the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's teacher's certificate based on the fact that he has allegedly engaged in numerous offensive activities, which has seriously impaired and reduced his effectiveness as an employee. After careful consideration of all the evidence adduced herein, the testimony of witnesses and the arguments of counsel, I conclude that the disciplinary measures used by the Respondent departed from the county's established procedure for disciplining students and despite repeated warnings that he refrain from corporally punishing students, he continued to do so. His conduct in the Gary Roary and Willie J. Critton incident on December 3, 1974, is exemplary of his disciplinary methods. Based thereon and the entire record herein, I find that Respondent's usefulness as a teacher-employee has been reduced within the meaning of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing finding of facts and conclusions, I hereby RECOMMEND: 1. That the Respondent's teaching certificate be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issues here are as presented through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent falsified applications related to her certification as a teacher in the State of Florida and her employment as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida School System. In particular it is alleged that Respondent falsely answered questions pertaining to her arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor offense in Jacksonville, Florida. For these acts, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that she has obtained her teaching certificate by fraudulent means and been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school system. Moreover, it is alleged that further fraud was committed related to Rule 6B- 1.06(5)(a)(g) and (h) Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to fraudulent statements or disclosures.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1981, Shirley Lambert made application to be certified as a teacher in the fields of health education and physical education. This certification request was made with a State of Florida, Department of Education Teacher Certification section. A copy of the application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. As part of the application, question V asks, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Lambert responded in the negative. Lambert also signed the application form below that portion of the application related to notarization which states "I understand that Florida Statutes provide revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate is obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 FS). I certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct." As a result of this application, Respondent was issued a teacher's certificate from the State of Florida, Department of Education in the field of physical education. The date of the issuance was June 25, 1982, for a period ending June 30, 1983. A copy of this certificate is found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. In fact, as was known to the Respondent at the time of making the application for certificate, she had been arrested and charged with petit theft for an offense that occurred on April 11, 1978, the taking of clothing less than $100 in value. The basis of the charge was Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent pled guilty to this offense and was given a ten day jail sentence which was suspended and probation imposed for a period of six months. The particulars of this disposition may be found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 3, which contained records of court related to the offense. On August 10, 1982, Respondent made application for employment with the Duval County School Board, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This application had a similar question related to prior criminal offenses. The application stated, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Again, the question was answered in the negative although Respondent was aware of the aforementioned criminal violation at the time she answered this questionnaire. The application was signed by Respondent and at the place of signature, Lambert was exposed to the language at the signature line which states "I certify that all information on this application is true and accurate and recognize that it is subject to verification and that my employment and/or continuance thereof is contingent upon its accuracy." Not being mindful of her prior criminal involvement the Duval County School System hired Respondent as a substitute teacher on September 13, 1982. Her criminal record was later disclosed to the administrators within that system and her employment was terminated effective October 12, 1982. Had the administration known of the prior criminal involvement, they would not have hired Lambert in view of the fact that they could be more selective and not choose a person with a prior criminal involvement, given the high number of applicants for jobs within their system. Dalton Epting, Director of Certified personnel of Duval County Public Schools, felt that a prior conviction of a misdemeanor offense of petit larceny would be in violation of standards required of teachers in Duval County. Likewise, the offense of petit larceny would be sufficient grounds to deny certification when requested of the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent testified that in the course of the final hearing and indicated in discussing both applications which are at issue that she read those applications too fast and made a mistake in answering the questions related to her prior criminal involvement. She felt in effect that she had not read the applications carefully. Moreover, in giving her explanation at final hearing, even though she recognized her prior criminal involvement in the way of arrest and the plea of guilty to petit theft, she stated that she did not feel the questions in the applications related to misdemeanors. She was of the opinion that the questions pertained to more serious crimes. Given the plain language of the questions in the application for certification with the State of Florida and the application for a position with the Duval County School Board and the precautionary statements related to accuracy and possible penalties for inaccuracy, Respondent's explanations are not plausible. Respondent's comments do not constitute a reasonable excuse for having falsified her applications for certification and employment.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for a Florida Educator's Certificate. On April 17, 2004, at the Kendall campus of Miami-Dade Community College (College), Petitioner sat for the general knowledge portion of the certification examination (Test), which included an essay question. In advance of the Test, Petitioner was informed in writing of, among other things, the following: In its continuing effort to assure fairness and equity in examination administration conditions, the Florida Department of Education is putting into written form those activities that have been, and continue to be, regarded as cheating by, or on behalf of, an examinee. The specific items represent cheating activities encountered throughout the history of the Department's assessment programs, but do not preclude the Department from appropriate action in cases of cheating that do not fall under a specific item. These guidelines are applicable to the Florida Teacher Certification Examinations program . . . . Section 1 defines those behaviors that constitute cheating. Section 2 lists materials, equipment and other aids that examinees are prohibited from using during the examination. . . . Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: * * * c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. * * * Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: . . . papers of any kind, including scratch paper; . . . * * * Annette Lorenzo, a College employee, was the "room supervisor" in the room in which Petitioner took the Test. Ms. Lorenzo was assisted by another College employee, Gladys Manrique, "who was "working as a proctor" in the room. When Petitioner arrived in the room the morning of the Test, she was checked in by Ms. Lorenzo, who assigned her a seat near the front of the room. Upon being told of her seat assignment, Petitioner "pointed to the last seat of the last row" and asked if she could sit there instead. Ms. Lorenzo "said, 'Okay, no problem,' and [Petitioner] went and sat down in that seat." After "checking everybody in," Ms. Lorenzo read "instructions for the exam" to the examinees (including "go[ing] through all the guidelines on what constitute[d] cheating, as well as what [was] and [was] not allowed in the room"), and, with Ms. Manrique's help, handed out the testing materials. Testing then began (at approximately 8:45 a.m.). Ms. Lorenzo and Ms. Manrique "walk[ed] around the room, up and down the aisles," to "mak[e] sure that nobody [was] cheating or using anything [prohibited]" while the test was being administered. As she was doing so, during the essay portion of the Test, Ms. Lorenzo noticed Petitioner periodically "looking into her [cupped] left hand [which was positioned on the desk in front of her, just above her answer booklet, and appeared to contain tissues] while she was writing" in the booklet with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo observed Petitioner's engaging in this suspicious conduct for "[a]t least ten minutes." During this time, Ms. Lorenzo was "staring at [Petitioner], watching her very closely." When she eventually made eye contact with Ms. Lorenzo, Petitioner moved her hands towards her face and "made a noise like she was blowing her noise." She then closed her left hand into a fist and continued writing with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo advised Ms. Manrique that she suspected that "something [was] going on" with Petitioner, and she asked Ms. Manrique to "take a look." Ms. Manrique observed Petitioner for approximately five minutes, after which she reported back to Ms. Lorenzo that she "believe[d] there [was] something going on as well." Ms. Lorenzo then "walked to the back of the room and stood to the right of Petitioner." From her vantage point, Ms. Lorenzo noticed "sticking out the bottom of [Petitioner's left] hand," which was "still in a fist," not only tissues, but "paper with some writing on it." Upon making this observation, Ms. Lorenzo asked Petitioner to show her "everything [Petitioner] had in her hand."3 Petitioner's immediate response was to "[u]s[e] her right hand [to] grab[] the tissues out of her left hand," which she then quickly closed into a fist again. She gave the tissues she had transferred from her left to right hand to Ms. Lorenzo, explaining that she had "just tissues" and nothing else. Ms. Lorenzo, however, knew otherwise and demanded that Petitioner open her left hand. Petitioner complied, revealing the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had seen "sticking out" of the hand when it was clenched. The paper was the size of a "small note [pad] sheet." It was crumpled from being held tightly by Petitioner. On the paper was a complete essay that that Petitioner had written before entering the examination room. The essay was entitled, "A Place to Visit: San Antonio Park."4 Ms. Lorenzo took the paper, as well as Petitioner's testing materials, including Petitioner's answer booklet, from Petitioner. In her answer booklet, Petitioner had written an essay about San Antonio Park, substantial portions of which were identical, word for word, to what was on the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had confiscated from Petitioner's left hand. Petitioner had knowingly brought this paper into the examination room with the intent to use it as an aid in answering the essay question on the general knowledge portion of the Test,5 and she carried out this intent once the Test began.6 As Petitioner started to "g[e]t a little bit loud," Ms. Lorenzo escorted her from the room and took her to see Juan Meza, the College's testing director.7 On the way to Mr. Meza's office, Petitioner insisted that she had not cheated and "begg[ed] [Ms. Lorenzo] to let her go finish the exam." Ms. Lorenzo responded that Petitioner's "test [was] over for today." After Ms. Lorenzo had told Mr. Meza that she had "found [Petitioner] cheating," Mr. Meza spoke to Petitioner and told her that she could not "continue taking the test" because she had been caught cheating. Petitioner denied to Mr. Meza that she had been cheating. Mr. Meza, in turn, informed Petitioner that he would send an "irregularity report" to the Department and that the Department would "make [a] decision" as to whether she had been cheating and then "contact her to let her know what [was] going on." As promised, on or about April 19, 2004, Mr. Meza sent an "irregularity report" to the Department (along with the materials that Ms. Lorenzo had taken from Petitioner in the examination room). On April 26, 2004, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioner: This letter is in response to information I have received from staff at Miami Dade College, Kendall campus confirming that you failed to follow testing procedures during the administration of the General Knowledge Test on April 17, 2004. Along with the admission ticket you received for the examination, you received a letter that outlines the State's policy on cheating. Section 1 (c) and (f) and Section 2 state the following: "Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: Timex Data Link™ wrist watch; electronic pager; cellular telephone; pocket organizer; electronic writing pen or pen-input device; any electronic device with an alphabetic keyboard; dictionary or other books; ruler; papers of any kind, including scratch paper; slide rule; protractor; compass; laptop computer; calculator watch, or calculator except those calculators provided at the test center for the following tests: Mathematics 6-12, the math portion of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum (MGIC), Middle Grades Mathematics 5-9, Chemistry 6-12, Physics 6-12, and the math subtests of the General Knowledge Test." As a result of your failure to abide by this policy, the score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test under your name and Social Security number . . . for the April 17, 2004, test administration has been invalidated. By copy of this letter, I am also informing Professional Practices Services and the Bureau of Educator Certification of this decision. This decision means that you have yet to fulfill the State's requirements for a passing score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test. You are entitled to dispute this decision through legal administrative procedures. If you wish to do so, you must send a written request for an administrative hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The written request must be postmarked within twenty (20) calendar days of the date you receive this letter and submitted to the following address: . . . . If you fail to submit the written request within the specified time period, you will have waived the opportunity to contest the decision through administrative proceedings, and the score invalidation decision will be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Petitioner responded by sending a letter to the Department, which read (verbatim) as follows: I have received your letter about the problem I had the day of test. I'm so sorry about the day. In 20 years of being a teacher, I never had that kind of problem. That day I had a bad cold and when I finished my test, the only thing that I had to do was to check it, but I was coughing badly and I took a napkin that was inside my bag on the floor, but together with the napkin came out a paper. I took both in my hand. I put my hand up, because I knew that if the teacher saw me in this moment I got in trouble, but it was too late. The teacher came to me, asked for the paper and the napkin and without I could explain anything. She took to the supervisor and explained everything to him. He told he had to follow the rules, then he had to report the incident. So I think I should have an opportunity to do my tests again. The Commissioner subsequently notified Petitioner that her application for certification was being denied because she had "attempted to cheat" on the essay portion of Test "by referring to a complete essay she had in her possession when she entered the room." This denial of Petitioner's application for certification is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order sustaining the denial of Petitioner's application for certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Lawrence A. Longenecker formerly held a Florida teaching certificate, and was employed as a science teacher at Madeira Beach Middle School in Pinellas County until January of 1978. In January of 1978, administrative charges were brought against the petitioner by the Professional Practices Council (the predecessor to the Education Practices Commission) for the revocation of his teaching certificate. After a hearing before a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, it was found that petitioner had made sexual advances toward three female students on four separate occasions during 1977 and that petitioner was thus guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee. The Hearing Officer recommended, by order dated November 25, 1980, that petitioner's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Professional Practices Council v. Lawrence Longenecker, DOAH Case No. 80-1276 (November 25, 1980). By Final Order filed on February 2, 1981, the Education Practices Commission adopted the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and permanently revoked petitioner's teaching certificate. Professional Practices Council v. Lawrence A. Longenecker, Case NO. 80-005-RT (February 2, 1981). No appeal was taken from this Final Order. In approximately March of 1983, petitioner filed an application for a Florida Teaching Certificate, which application was denied by the Department of Education. Its "Notice of Reasons" for denial, filed on June 30, 1983, recited the events which formed the bases for the prior permanent revocation of petitioner's teaching certificate, and concluded that petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he is of good moral character, as required by Section 231.17(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that petitioner had committed acts for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teacher's certificate. Petitioner was 28 and 29 years of age during the time of the acts which formed the basis for the prior certificate revocation. He is now 34 years old. Since 1978, he has obtained a Master's degree in personnel administration from the University of South Florida and has been employed in the area of retail management. He fees that he is now more mature and more wise and would like to return to his chosen profession of teaching school. During the pendency of the instant proceeding, petitioner visited Dr. Alfred Fireman for psychiatric counseling and evaluation on three occasions. It was Dr. Fireman's opinion that petitioner is psychologically fit to reenter the teaching profession provided that his behavior is monitored. He concluded that petitioner "was a suitable candidate for a probationary restoration of privileges." The Education Practices Commission has never reinstated a former certificate or issued a new teaching certificate to an individual whose certificate had been previously permanently revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order denying petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1984. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 9th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue SW Largo, Florida 33540 J. David Holder, Esquire Berg & Holder 128 Salem Court Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald L. Greisheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 125, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practice Commission should grant Petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed February 22, 1995, Petitioner requested an initial two-year nonrenewal temporary teaching certificate and a two-year part-time coaching certificate. The application discloses that Petitioner was born July 24, 1960. A question on the form asks: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic accident (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? SEALED or EXPUNGED records must be reported pursuant to s.943.058, F.S. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES OR NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. The additional information requested on the form, if the "yes" box is checked, provides spaces for the following information: "city where arrested," "State," "Charge(s)," and "Disposition(s)." In response to this question, Petitioner checked the "yes" box and filled in the three spaces provided. Petitioner disclosed that, in East Williston, New York, in 1978, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." (This would mean driver's license because Petitioner answered in the negative the next question on the form, which asks whether he had ever had a teaching certificate revoked or otherwise disciplined in another state.) Petitioner also disclosed that, in Roslyn, New York, in 1979, he was charged with "DUI" and the disposition was "license revocation." Last, Petitioner disclosed that, in Mineola, New York, in 1986, he was charged with "Disorderly-Conduct" and the disposition was "Plead Guilty/Paid Fine [and] Placed on Probation." On a separate sheet of paper attached to the February 22 application and entitled "Arrest/Revocation Record," Petitioner disclosed: In addition to the records I have provided you, I was arrested several other times around the year 1980, and I don't recall the exact dates and dispositions--they were misdemeanors for disorderly conduct, and the charges were either dismissed or reduced and a fine paid. In signing the application, which is acknowledged by a notary, Petitioner attests that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete." By Application for Florida Educator's Certificate filed March 11, 1994, Petitioner requested only a two-year part-time coaching certificate. This application is identical to the first except in the disclosure of convictions. In the March 11 application, Petitioner disclosed the East Williston and Roslyn offenses, although the years changed to 1979 and 1980, respectively. Instead of a Mineola offense in 1986, Petitioner listed an Old Westbury offense in 1986. The Old Westbury offense was also for disorderly conduct and the disposition was a guilty plea and payment of fine, although the probation was omitted. Petitioner did not disclose on a separate sheet or otherwise the additional material disclosed on the separate sheet attached to the February 22 application. Petitioner has passed the relevant portions of the examination required of teachers and has met the conditions for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate except for issues in connection with his criminal history. By letter dated February 23, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application for a Florida teaching certificate had been denied. The letter refers to an accompanying Notice of Reasons. The Notice of Reasons recites that Petitioner filed an application for a Florida teaching certificate in March 1994. The Notice of Reasons notes that Petitioner disclosed only three of ten criminal convictions and concludes that the nondisclosures and convictions themselves constitute violations of the statutes and rules cited in the Preliminary Statement above. On February 19, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, driving under the influence, and operating a vehicle without a license. This and all other arrests took place in Nassau County, New York. On May 10, 1979, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charges of disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $500 fine, alcohol rehabilitation, and restriction of his driver's license to business and school. On September 27, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and two counts of criminal mischief. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, a reduced charge of two counts of disorderly conduct. The court sentenced Petitioner to a $75 restitution payment or 10 days in jail and conditionally discharged him. On November 25, 1979, Petitioner was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and driving under the influence. The former charge was dismissed. On July 2, 1980, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, driving under the influence. The court sentenced him to a $200 fine and revocation of his driver's license. On January 12, 1982, Petitioner was arrested and charged with assault. On April 12, 1982, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of harassment. The court deferred disposition and conditionally discharged Petitioner pending payment of $32 restitution. On May 19, 1984, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief. On April 1, 1985, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the reduced charge of attempted criminal mischief. The court unconditionally discharged him. On May 26, 1985, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief and resisting arrest. On June 12, 1986, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the charges. The court sentenced Petitioner to three years' probation. On November 5, 1986, Petitioner was arrested and charged with harassment and resisting arrest. On December 1, 1987, Petitioner pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, both charges. The court conditionally released Petitioner. Petitioner is recovering from dependencies on alcohol and drugs. In 1987, he entered a rehabilitation clinic on Pine Island where he underwent a month's treatment. He then entered a halfway house in Ft. Myers for three months. He regularly attends Alcoholic Anonymous meetings and obtains counseling. Prior to obtaining treatment, Petitioner attended St. Johns University and the Berklee College of Music, evidently without obtaining any degrees. Since treatment, Petitioner obtained in 1989 an Associate Arts degree from Edison Community College in Ft. Myers and in 1992 a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Emerson College in Boston with a major in acting and a minor in literature. While in Boston pursuing the BFA degree, Petitioner taught writing to gifted high school students and voluntarily performed for high school students plays that Petitioner had written and produced. He also tutored inner city students in reading. In April 1994, Petitioner obtained a statement of eligibility from Respondent. This allowed him to teach for up to two years, during which time he had to apply for a temporary nonrenewable teaching certificate. In August 1994, Petitioner was employed to teach seventh grade social studies and reading at Cypress Lake Middle School in Lee County. After a month, he was transferred to the special education department where he taught students in the middle-school drop-out prevention program. While at the school, Petitioner served as an assistant coach on the girls' basketball team and the boys' baseball team. The principal of the school terminated Petitioner's contract February 21, 1995, evidently when he learned that Respondent would be denying him a Florida teaching certificate. Petitioner has since been employed as a teacher by a private school in Lee County. Petitioner relied on advice from a well-meaning friend when he filed a second application a couple of weeks after filing the first application. The friend had told Petitioner that he could apply for a coaching certificate without applying on the same application for a two-year temporary teaching certificate. The innocent filing of two separate applications generated confusion for both Petitioner and Respondent. When denying Petitioner's request for a teaching certificate, Respondent inadvertently omitted mention of the first application. Similarly, when filing the second application, Petitioner inadvertently failed to include the separate sheet that he included with the first application. However, Respondent already had the separate sheet from the first application. It would be as disingenuous for Respondent to claim lack of knowledge, as to the second application, of the disclosures contained on the separate sheet attached to the first application as it would be for Petitioner to claim that the denial of the second application is not also intended to be a denial of the first application. The adequacy of the disclosures on the separate sheet is a separate matter. The two applications refer to two of the three 1979 arrests and report sentences of revocation of driver's license. The three 1979 arrests actually resulted in convictions for disorderly conduct and driving while ability impaired by alcohol (February 1979 arrest), disorderly conduct (September 1979 arrest), and driving under the influence (November 1979 arrest). The actual sentences were, respectively: $500 fine, driving restrictions, and alcohol rehabilitation; $75 restitution; and license revocation and $200 fine. The first two disclosures do a fair job of revealing Petitioner's first three convictions, especially given the fact that they took place 15 years ago when Petitioner was 18 and 19 years old. Obviously, one arrest/conviction is missing, but it appears that the court disposed of the second and third arrests at the same time and possibly in a consolidate proceeding. This may account for Petitioner's recollection that the second and third arrests were a single case. Also, the separate sheet addresses omissions. The dates are a little off, but the first arrest was early in 1979, and the consolidated disposition of the second and third arrests was in 1980. As reported by Petitioner, the charges are roughly correct, and the dispositions suggest the seriousness of the offenses. It is hard to tell which conviction the third reported arrest signifies. After the three 1979 arrests, there were four more convictions for which Petitioner had to account. To his credit, Petitioner identified 1986 as the year of the arrest, so as not to suggest that his criminal problems were further behind him than they really were. Although none of the actual arrests or convictions is for disorderly conduct, which is what Petitioner reported on the application forms, all four of the convictions could be fairly described as disorderly conduct. The reported and actual dispositions do not preclude the possibility that Petitioner was identifying any of the four arrests. Thus, Petitioner was probably disclosing the November 1986 arrest on the application forms, and he did a reasonably complete job of doing so. The disclosure question is therefore whether the separate sheet adequately accounts for the convictions arising out of the 1982, 1984, and 1985 arrests. These arrests took place "around the year 1980," as Petitioner reported on the separate sheet. "Disorderly conduct," as stated on the separate sheet, roughly describes the nature of the offenses, although less so the nature of the arrests, which is what Petitioner claims on the separate sheet to be describing. In fact, Petitioner paid restitution of $32 once, was unconditionally discharged once, and was placed on probation once. The reported fine in each case serves as reasonable disclosure, at least where no jail time is involved. On balance, Petitioner's disclosures did more than place Respondent on inquiry notice. The disclosures were reasonably accurate and detailed. They gave a fair picture of the kind of trouble that Petitioner got into at that point in his life. Respondent's case is based on Petitioner's unfitness to teach based on his alleged dishonesty in the application process and his past criminal behavior. Once the question of dishonesty in the application process is resolved in favor of Petitioner, the remaining focus is on his behavior 9-15 years ago when he was 18-26 years old. The number of arrests and convictions is troubling. But the dispositions do not suggest offenses of extreme gravity. Petitioner is now 35 years old. He has rehabilitated himself in terms of intoxicants, as well as educationally. For many years, he has demonstrated a clear commitment to teaching and evidently is skilled in the profession. He has served his communities well and seeks to continue to do so as a teacher in Florida. Given the nature of the offenses, their age, and the age of Petitioner at the time he committed the offenses, there is no basis in the record to find that Petitioner is morally unfit to teach.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Education Practice Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner's February 1994 application for a Florida teaching and coaching certificate. ENTERED on October 6, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on October 6, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-18: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19-22: adopted or adopted in substance. 23-27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Attorney Jerry L. Lovelace 909 SE 47th Terrace, Suite 201 Cape Coral, FL 33904 Ronald G. Stowers Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On September 9, 1982 Petitioner filed an application with the Teacher Certification Section of the Florida Department of Education to be re-certified as a teacher in the State of Florida. He was previously certified as a teacher in Florida from September 3, 1974 until 1979 in the field of cooperative distributive education. Mr. Hill is a graduate of the University of South Florida with a bachelor's degree in distributive education and he has 20 to 25 hours of credit towards his master's degree in administration Supervision. From 1974 until 1977 he successfully taught school in the Orlando area. In December of 1979 Petitioner had an argument with his father. During the course of that argument Mr. Hill picked up a 12 gauge shotgun and hit his father in the stomach several times. Petitioner was arrested, charged with aggravated assault, and subsequently adjudicated not guilty by a reason of insanity. The court order adjudicating him not guilty found that "At the time of the alleged offense, defendant's psychological condition caused him to function under paranoid delusions and persecutory relations. He not only had such thoughts and beliefs, but they were held so firmly that he was acting upon them." After the entry of that order on March 24, 1980, Petitioner was found to meet the criteria for involuntary commitment to a state mental hospital pursuant to the provisions of the Baker Act. He was treated at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital until June 1980 and then released to the Peace River Center for Personal Development as a resident there. In either October or November 1981 Mr. Hill ceased taking the psychotropic medication which had been prescribed for him. By March 1982 he was again readmitted as an involuntary patient at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and after treatment there he was released in August 1982 back to the Peace River Center. Dr. M. Saleem Jeewa has been his treating psychiatrist since June of 1980. At the present time Dr. Jeewa prescribes Mellaril, a major tranquilizer, and Pamelor, an anti-depressant medication for Petitioner. Mr. Hill now visits Dr. Jeewa on a monthly basis unless something unusual happens in the interim. Additionally Petitioner attends group therapy three times a week and lives in one of the satellite apartments at Peace River Center. The satellite apartments are an arrangement where three or four patients live together to share expenses and help each other as a peer group. The satellite apartments are not part of a residential facility but are leased out in the community by the Peace River Center. In April 1983 Petitioner began working at American Building Maintenance, a Tampa janitorial service. His other employment history subsequent to his arrest, but prior to this hearing, includes janitorial work for Goodwill Industries. This employment was terminated when, due to an automobile accident, Mr. Hill was injured and physically unable to perform his job. Prior to that employment he worked for a CETA program where he assisted in locating jobs for handicapped persons. With respect to Mr. Hill's present psychological state he has no evidence of any thought disorder. His speech is logical, coherent and relevant. He has a fair amount of insight into his own condition and his judgment is adequate. No psychosis is apparent. He continues however to display a mild form of mixed anxiety and depression. At the present time it would be difficult however, for Mr. Hill to handle a job where he is fairly independent, must be flexible with considerable responsibilities and handle a variety of tasks. In order for Mr. Hill to be a successful teacher in a classroom situation with responsibility for 15 to 20 children, he would initially need some additional assistance and support over and above that normally required by a new teacher. It is unlikely that due to Mr. Hill's present condition he would cause any harm or be dangerous to students or other people around him. While it is within the realm of possibility that Petitioner, if certified, could successfully handle the responsibilities of a distributive education teacher, that possibility is not probable in view of Petitioner's present fragile psychological state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State Board of Education as the head of the Department of Education, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a teacher in the field of distributive education. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 4th day of November, 1983.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of September, 2002.
