Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 297447 covering the area of elementary education. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Dade County School District. During the 1983-84 school year, the Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher of Chapter I students at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School. During the 1984-85 school year, the Respondent was again employed at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School as a second grade teacher. In March 1985, Respondent was transferred to Miami Springs Elementary School for the remainder of the school year as a result of an altercation involving an irate parent. During her tenure at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Respondent was assigned approximately 16 students in her second grade classes each year. Respondent was assigned a fourth grade class at Miami Springs Elementary School from March through June 1985. The Respondent's class contained approximately 30 students. Respondent was a first year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1983-84 school year and a second year annual contract employee of the Dade County Public Schools during the 1984-85 school year. Respondent was not reappointed for the 1985-86 school year as an employee of the Dade County Public Schools because she failed to perform at an acceptable level of professional performance at two different schools, under two different administrations, with two different sets of students. The principal of Lillie C. Evans Elementary School, Willie Mae Brown, is a thirty-six year employee of the Dade County School System. Ms. Brown was Respondent's principal during Respondent's employment at Lillie C. Evans Elementary School. Ms. Brown has been trained to observe and evaluate the professional performance of classroom teachers and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers in her position as principal. On May 31, 1984, Brown prepared the Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year. She rated Respondent as unacceptable in the category of classroom management and noted in the remarks section of the evaluation that Respondent "should continue participating in workshops that will enable her to acquire techniques in instruction and classroom management." Brown requested that Respondent attend workshops on techniques of instruction and classroom management during the 1983-84 school year and that she observe fellow teachers in the school in order to improve Respondent's performance in the classroom. During the 1984-85 school year, Brown continued to observe serious problems with Respondent's control of student conduct and classroom management. On October 1, 1984, Brown overheard a child screaming loudly in the Respondent's classroom as if the child was in pain. When Brown observed Respondent on October 5, 1984, she noted that Respondent was unable to manage the class, failed to use non-verbal techniques and few verbal techniques to deal with students who were off-task. Brown observed that pupils were moving about and making noise in the classroom. Respondent's lesson plans did not appear to have enough activities to occupy the students' attention. Respondent was provided with "prescription plan" activities and recommended resources for implementation of the prescriptions. Brown provided a time line for improvement of October 29, 1984. On October 24,1984, Brown prepared a log of assistance which had been provided to Respondent. Brown's log noted that on October 1, 1984, Mrs. Mayme Moore, North Central Area Chapter I Resource Teacher, provided special assistance to Respondent concerning control of student conduct. In addition, Brown documented assistance provided to Respondent by Teacher Lena Hoskins; Teacher Sharon Sbrissa; Mr. Mitchell, School Guidance Counselor; Walter Foden, Assistant Principal; and others. As a follow-up to the October 5, 1984 observation, Brown again observed Respondent's classroom performance on October 29, 1984. Brown observed that the Respondent's performance was deficient in preparation and planning and classroom management. Brown observed a large number of children off-task. Respondent still appeared to be unable to manage her students. Again, Respondent failed to provide enough activities to occupy the students for the full class period. Brown noted that two pupils fell asleep during the class. Once again, Brown prescribed plan activities and recommended resources to Respondent with a time line of November 15, 1984. Brown continued to provide Respondent with assistance through the Teacher Education Center and through fellow teachers. On November 21, 1984, Brown found four of Respondent's students creating a disturbance in a bathroom. Upon returning these students to Respondent's classroom, she observed eight or nine of the twelve students in the classroom running around making noise. During the course of the 1984-85 school year, Ms. Brown received three or four written complaints and several additional telephone calls from parents complaining about Respondent's class. The nature of the parental complaints concerned Respondent's lack of control of student conduct in the classroom. On December 10, 1984, a conference for the record was held by Brown with Respondent and her union representative to address parent complaints, the complaint of the primary helping teacher for Respondent, Respondent's performance assessment to date and her employment status. At the conference, Respondent was advised of letters of complaints from parents and peers regarding her classroom management. Respondent was afforded the opportunity to identify a fellow teacher with whom she could confer and observe. Respondent did not indicate a preference for peer assistance. As primary helping teacher, Ms. Scurry complained that Respondent's inability to control students in her classroom was requiring Ms. Scurry's assistance almost every day. Scurry expressed concern to Brown about Respondent's continuous need for assistance with her students which was interfering with Scurry's instruction of her own class. In addition to Scurry, two other teachers, Ms. Drawley and Ms. Bell, made written complaints to Brown concerning the disruption of their respective classes due to excessive noise emanating from Respondent's classroom. At the request of Principal Brown, on November 1, 1984, Respondent prepared a summary of assistance which the Respondent received during the year. Respondent's handwritten narrative discloses that she received assistance from Mrs. Sbrissa, Mrs. Hoskins, Mrs. Moore, Mrs. Knight, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Brown, and Mr. Foden. Brown continued to require that Respondent attend prescriptive in- service courses through the Teacher Education Center in the latter half of the 1984-85 school year. Specifically, Brown requested that Respondent attend courses concerning classroom management and preparation and planning. On February 15, 1985, a joint observation of Respondent's professional classroom performance was conducted by Brown and Mrs. Eneida Hartner, the Area Director for the North Central Area of the Dade County Public Schools. Each observer evaluated Respondent's performance separately. Respondent received advance notice of the observation. The combined evaluations of Brown and Hartner resulted in an overall rating of unacceptable, with specific ratings of unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Respondent was once again provided with prescription plan activities, recommended resources with which to implement the activities and a time line for improvement. Both observers noted that Respondent failed to provide sufficient activities for the class period to occupy the students' time for the entire period and, as a result, students were off-task. Respondent failed to motivate her students to be interested in the task at hand and failed to provide appropriate feedback concerning the students' behavior. In March, 1985, Brown again received a memorandum from the Teacher Education Center regarding prescriptive in-service courses for the Respondent. Brown requested that Respondent attend the course on classroom management. Subsequently, on April 15, 1985, Ms. Brown was notified by memorandum that the Respondent had failed to attend the classroom management course prescribed for her. During the 1984-85 school year, many educators from Lillie C. Evans Elementary School and from the school district provided Respondent with assistance at the request of Brown in an effort to remediate Respondent's observed deficiencies. In addition to Principal Brown, Assistant Principal Walter Foden observed and evaluated Respondent's performance. On November 19, 1984, Foden conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom and found her to be deficient in the area of classroom management. In the TADS observation form, Foden identified the areas of deficiency, prescribed plan activities for improvement, indicated recommended resources, and provided a time line for Respondent's improvement. Foden observed that Respondent was unaware of childrens' off-task behavior in the classroom despite the fact that there were only 12 to 13 children in her classroom at the time. Foden recommended six individuals to provide Respondent with assistance, and each of the six did provide assistance to her. Foden also observed Respondent on September 12, 1984. Based upon this observation, Foden concluded that Respondent was deficient in classroom management and in the teacher-student relationship. The students ignored Respondent, would not listen to her and appeared to lack respect for her. In addition, Respondent's instructions were unclear. Foden recommended four resource persons to Respondent. These individuals provided Respondent with the assistance requested. Gwendolyn Bryant, Primary Education Coordinator for the Dade County School System, provided assistance to Respondent at the request of Principal Brown. Bryant met with Respondent in her classroom on December 12, 1984, and on January 9, 1985. Bryant observed that Respondent needed assistance with classroom management and with the implementation of the primary education program. Bryant returned on January 9, 1985, and reviewed the procedures for implementing PREP, RSVP (Reading Systems Very Plain) and TMP (Total Math Program). During her January visit, Bryant found that Respondent had not yet evaluated her students to determine their needs under these programs. The evaluations of the students' individual needs should have been completed at the beginning of the school year. Bryant concluded that Respondent was in need of continuing assistance with classroom organization and management. Margaret Rogers, teacher on special assignment to the Reading Department, provided assistance to Respondent in April 1985 at Miami Springs Elementary School. Rogers reviewed RSVP with Respondent, reviewed the Respondent's grouping of students for reading, provided the Respondent with handouts on teaching a directed reading lesson and classroom management, rearranged the students' desks to comply with fire code and to provide access to the blackboard, and provided Respondent with numerous suggestions on control of student conduct. On the following day, April 2, 1985, Rogers demonstrated a writing lesson for Respondent and provided Respondent with information on RSVP and teaching a directed reading lesson. During her tenure at Miami Springs Elementary School, Respondent received assistance from Helen B. Francis, Assistant Principal. It was Ms. Francis who requested that Mrs. Rogers provide assistance to Respondent. On April 15, 1985, Ms. Francis conducted a formal observation and evaluation of Respondent's classroom performance. Ms. Francis rated Respondent deficient in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Francis observed that Respondent failed to control student conduct, resulting in constant disruptions and interference in the reading lesson which she was attempting to conduct at the time. Ms. Francis was in the Respondent's classroom almost on a daily basis because of constant complaints from parents and other teachers. Francis concluded that Respondent was unable to provide her students with appropriate instruction because she could not maintain control of the children's behavior. On March 29, 1985, Principal Margot J. Silverman observed and evaluated Respondent's teaching performance. Based upon that observation, Dr. Silverman rated Respondent deficient in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Dr. Silverman provided an intensive description of the observed deficiencies and numerous specific suggestions for improvement. Silverman observed Respondent's performance again on May 13, 1985. Based upon the observation, Dr. Silverman evaluated Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationships. Again, Dr. Silverman provided a detailed description of the observed deficiencies as well as specific suggestions for improvement. On May 30, 1985, Dr. Silverman prepared Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On the evaluation, Silverman rated Respondent's performance as unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationships. Silverman rated Respondent's overall performance as unacceptable and recommended that she not be re- employed for the following school year. Dr. Patrick Gray, Executive Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards for the Dade County Public Schools, testified at formal hearing that in his professional opinion, Respondent has proven to be incompetent as a classroom teacher, by the standards of both the County School System and the Florida Department of Education. In Dr. Gray's expert opinion, Respondent's personal performance in the classroom has seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Dade County School Board. Dr. Gray determined from a review of all of the observations, both internal and external, that Respondent's professional performance was worsening, rather than improving, despite extensive assistance to help her remediate her deficiencies. Gray's review of Respondent's personnel file discloses that the Respondent did not achieve an acceptable level of performance in any of the nine classroom observations conducted of her during the 1984-85 school year. Gray is unaware of any additional assistance which the Dade County School System could provide to Respondent to assist her in remediating perceived deficiencies beyond the assistance which has been previously provided to her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint and permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 47 has been rejected as being unnecessary, and Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 48 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Respondent filed posthearing correspondence which contains ten unnumbered paragraphs. The eighth unnumbered paragraph is the only one which constitutes a proposed finding of fact, and it is rejected since it is not supported by the evidence in this cause. The remainder of the unnumbered paragraphs in Respondent's correspondence have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: J. DAVID HOLDER, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 1694 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 JOYCE L. PENCHANSKY 610 N.E. 177TH STREET NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33162 KAREN B. WILDE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION 125 KNOTT BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 MARTIN B. SCHAPP, ADMINISTRATOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES SERVICES 319 WEST MADISON STREET, ROOM 3 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399
The Issue Issues for consideration in this case include whether there exists an adequate factual basis for Petitioner Duval County School Board (the Board) to terminate Respondent's employment as a principal and teacher for those violations of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida, 1941, as amended (the Act), which are alleged by the Board's Notice of Dismissal; and whether there exists an adequate factual basis for the Education Practices Commission (EPC) to revoke or suspend Respondent's teaching certificate or otherwise discipline Respondent for violations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate number 263958, covering the areas of physical education and school principal (all levels). The certificate is valid through June 30, 2001. Respondent is a certified teacher who, on the basis of his long-term employment by the Board, has tenure as a result of the length of his service in a satisfactory capacity. Respondent was employed as the Principal at Sandalwood High School by the Board from 1988 through the spring semester of 1994. Commencing in the summer of 1994 and continuing through October 20, 1995, Respondent was employed by the Board as Principal at Forrest High School. Respondent has been removed from his position as Principal of Forrest High School, but continues as a salaried employee of the Board pending resolution of the charges which form the basis for this proceeding. During Respondent's tenure as Principal at Forrest High School, he supervised teachers Julie T. Lee, Kimberly L. Smith, Pamela W. Bean, and Karen E. Jones. Julie T. Lee, Teacher During the 1994-1995 school year, Lee was both the Student Activities Director and the Cheerleading Coach for Forrest High School. In addition, she taught two classes on the subject of ecology. As Student Activities Director, she had an office centrally located, apart from the classroom she used. In November of 1994, Respondent called Lee into his office. He shut and locked the door. He asked Lee to sit down in a chair that Lee noted had been turned and was out of place. She sat down. Respondent then went behind her and proceeded to rub her shoulders. Lee was uncomfortable and did not welcome or encourage Respondent's actions. On February 6, 1995, Respondent again called Lee into his office and shut and locked the door. After a conversation with Lee, Respondent approached Lee and said he need a hug. He proceeded to hug Lee without her consent. In May of 1995, while Lee was using the telephone in the Principal's office for a long distance call, Respondent returned unexpectedly, shut and locked the door, and sat down in a chair behind Lee. He proceeded to grab Lee about her hips and pull her down to sit in his lap. He told her if she would take care of him, she could have anything she wanted at the school. Lee got up, said she would take care of student activities and left. About a week later, Respondent encountered Lee outside her office and asked her if she had thought about his offer. Lee acted as if she didn't know what Respondent was talking about. Later, before the end of the school year, Respondent informed Lee that he was moving her office. The new location for Lee's job as Student Activities Director was a weight room near the school gym. The room was bright red, smelled of sweat, and was located in an out of the way place for purposes of student activities. Lee commenced using the new location prior to the end of the school year for a period of approximately four weeks. At the end of the four week period, Respondent came to Lee's office and told her that she had one hour in which to move. The new office was a former special education classroom at the other extreme end of the building, away from a central location, flooded with water and dirty. A few days thereafter, Respondent also told Lee that she would have to teach three out-of-field social studies classes in addition to the Cheerleading Coach and Student Activities Director jobs. Lee felt she could not do all three jobs under any circumstances. Further, she felt that teaching a majority of out- of-field classes would subject her to being surplussed the following year unless she became certified in those areas in the interim. Lee did not accept the justification that the additional class assignment was purely the result of budgetary constraints and felt that she was being subjected to retaliation for not meeting Respondent's sexual overtures. She talked with Mark Scott, a music teacher, about the matter on September 18, 1995. Scott had heard about difficulties that another teacher was having with Respondent. Scott revealed his discussion with the other teacher, Kimberly Smith, to Lee. Lee subsequently contacted Smith. Kimberly Smith, Teacher Sometime near the middle of the 1994-1995 school year, Respondent walked up behind Smith in the school library and massaged her shoulders. Smith did not welcome or invite Respondent's conduct. On or about June 14, 1995, Respondent asked Smith into his office and locked the door. After a conversation relating to her resignation as basketball coach, Respondent asked Smith for a hug. As Smith attempted to pull back from the hug, Respondent pulled Smith against his body and with his face on her neck told her that she smelled good. Respondent then told Smith to get out of there before he forgot who he was. The next school year, on September 18, 1995, Respondent approached Smith in the hallway near the library and after some conversation grabbed her arm, pulled her to him and requested that Smith come to his office and give him "some tender loving care." If she complied, Respondent promised to "see what I can do for you." Smith told Jon Nerf, an English teacher at Forrest High School, about the September 18, 1995 incident shortly after it occurred. Nerf's testimony establishes that Smith was emotionally upset by Respondent's action. Pamela W. Bean, Teacher In April of 1995, Respondent asked Pamela W. Bean, a teacher, to come into his office when she asked to talk with him. He closed the door. After she was seated and talking, Respondent told Bean that she "looked stressed." He stepped behind her and began to rub her shoulders. When Bean got up, Respondent told her that he "needed a hug." Bean, nonplussed by the unsolicited and unwelcome advance of Respondent, complied with a brief hug and left. The next day, a similar incident with Bean occurred in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent's back rub and hug overtures were unsolicited by Bean who complied again with Respondent's request for a hug. Karen Jones, Teacher In the spring of 1995, Karen E. Jones, another teacher, asked to speak with Respondent. He asked her into his office and closed the door. Respondent then told Jones "I need a hug" and proceeded to hug her. After hugging Jones, Respondent told her that "we need to do that more often." In the first half of September of 1995, Respondent asked Jones to come into a room near his office called "Trawick's Trough." After entering the room, he again asked for a hug and hugged Jones. Jones did not solicit or welcome the hug. Jones later confided prior to initiation of any formal charges against Respondent in her long-term friend, Susan Ingraham, who is a school board employee, regarding Respondent's overtures. Julie A. Gray, Teacher Julie A. Gray was a first year teacher of Spanish and the yearbook sponsor at Sandalwood High School during the 1991-1992 school year when Respondent was her supervisor and the Principal at that school. Respondent approached Gray in the hallway during the early part of that school term. Respondent told Grey that he liked to get hugs from his faculty members. Gray patted him lightly on the shoulders. Respondent then said,"oh, I didn't mean here. I meant in my office." Later in the school term, Gray went to report to Respondent that all the yearbooks had been sold. Gray found Respondent near the bookkeeper's office and started talking to him. He leaned over and tried to kiss her on the mouth. When she backed away, Respondent tried to hug Gray. She was embarrassed by the incident and informed Peggy Clark, a professional support staffer for new teachers, that Respondent had made remarks of a sexual nature to Gray. Gray's roommate was also informed by Gray regarding Respondent's attempt to kiss Gray. The Teachers As a result of Lee's conversation with Mark Scott, Lee subsequently compared experiences with Smith. Bean, assigned by Respondent to sit in the student activity office during one of Lee's social studies classes also had a discussion with Lee. The three, Lee, Smith and Bean, decided to lodge complaints with the school administration and did so in early October of 1995. Lee felt she had not choice if she did not want to lose her job. Smith would have reported Respondent's behavior toward her earlier, but felt that she was alone and could not succeed. Bean, likewise, had felt she was alone and would not be believed over the word of a principal. Jones learned about the other teachers and their grievances a couple of weeks following Respondent's last advance toward her and decided to join the others in making a complaint. Gray had considered bringing sexual harassment charges against Respondent in the spring of 1992, but felt it would simply be her word against Respondent. She decided to come forward with her allegations in response to requests by the Board's representative who had learned of Respondent's behavior in 1992 toward Gray. Based on their candor and demeanor while testifying, as well as the consistency of their testimony with earlier statements made by them to persons with whom they spoke following various incidents, the testimony of all five teachers, Lee, Smith, Bean, Jones, and Gray, is fully credited and establishes that Respondent's conduct toward them was intimidating and adversely affected their abilities and enthusiasm for teaching in such situations. Stefani Powell, Contract Manager Stefani Powell was a district supervisor for ARAMARK, the operator of the Board's food service in the school system during the 1994-95 school year. In her capacity, Powell managed 14 school cafeterias, including the one at Forrest High School. Respondent, as the Principal at Forrest, was a client of ARAMARK's, oversaw what happened in the cafeteria, and approved certain aspects of the cafeteria's functioning. In meetings with Powell in his office, Respondent began closing and later locking the doors, commencing in October of 1994. He initiated hugs with Powell at the end of these meetings. On approximately eight to 10 occasions, the last in January or February of 1995, Respondent hugged Powell. Initially, the hugs were light, but progressed and grew stronger with Respondent eventually placing his hand on Powell's back and pushing inward. On the last occasion, Respondent kissed Powell on the cheek. None of these attentions by Respondent was solicited by Powell and were unwelcome. Since Respondent's advances made Powell uncomfortable, she eventually confided in her supervisor who advised that Powell always take someone with her or ensure the presence of a third person at conferences with Respondent. Powell followed this practice with regard to future meetings with Respondent. After reading in the newspaper of the allegations of the teachers at Forrest High School, Powell told her mother, a school board employee, of her experiences with Respondent. As a result, Powell was put in touch with the Board's investigator and her complaint against Respondent followed. Due to her candor and demeanor at the final hearing, as well as consistency of her testimony with statements made by her to others, Powell's testimony is totally credited. Dishonesty In The Course Of Employment Carol Abrahams was a clerk one at Forrest High School during the 1994-1995 school year. She shared a social relationship with Respondent and his wife. In April of 1995, Respondent made Abrahams the Principal's secretary. Abrahams was a clerk one. A clerk three is the customary rating and higher paying position normally assigned duties as a Principal's secretary. Respondent sought to augment Abrahams' pay since she was paid less than a Principal's secretary would normally receive. Respondent directed the use of Community School funds to pay Abrahams for work after the normal school day hours. Commencing with the beginning of the 1995-1996 school year, Abrahams was paid $9.50 per hour for the hours of 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. each day that Community School functioned, Monday-Thursday, through September of 1995. Abrahams did not work during all the hours for which she claimed payment for the period of August 23, 1995 through September 28, 1995. Specifically, Abrahams went to an aerobics class conducted at Forrest High School from 3:30 until 4:30 p.m. almost every Monday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week during August and September, 1995. On three payroll hour certifications signed by Respondent, payment was made to Abrahams for a total of 16 hours during 16 days that were not actually worked at the times claimed. Respondent knew that Abrahams was attending the aerobics classes, but it was assumed by he and others that Abrahams would make up the missed hours. Abrahams testimony that she did school work at home, on weekends and at other times in an amount of hours sufficient to more than make up for the hours claimed on the subject pay roll certifications, while creditable, is not corroborated by any record of such "comp" time and cannot serve to extinguish the commission by Respondent of the technical violation of approval of those time sheets for subsequent payment when he knew those records were not accurate. Conduct And Effectiveness Respondent's misconduct, as established by the testimony of Lee, Smith, Bean, Gray, Jones and Powell, constitutes personal conduct reducing Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Board.
Recommendation Pursuant to provisions of disciplinary guidelines contained within Rule 6B-11.007, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by EPC revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of two years, with recertification at the conclusion of that time conditioned upon Respondent's acceptance of a three year probationary period upon terms and conditions to be established by the EPC, and it isFURTHER RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board dismissing and discharging Respondent from his position of employment with the Board.DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernst D. Mueller, Esquire Office of the General Counsel City of Jacksonville 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South 9th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 William J. Sheppard, Esquire Sheppard and White, P.A. 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Larry Zenke, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8154
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, should be reprimanded and reassigned from her position as Countryside High School principal to a position as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office, at the same rate of pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, has been involved in the field of education for over 20 years. She moved to Volusia County in 1985 to begin her career in Florida. She began as assistant director of personnel but went through target selection and became an elementary school assistant principal, an elementary school principal, and then the principal of Volusia County's largest high school. She married and moved to Pinellas County in 1993 and was hired as an assistant principal at Gibbs High School for the 1993-94 school year. She was promoted to principal of Countryside High School for the 1994-95 school year. During her tenure in Pinellas County, Lambeth was a very effective principal and generally very well-liked (although, like almost all principals, she had her detractors as well as her supporters.) Lambeth's performance evaluations during her tenure in Pinellas County through May 8, 1998, have been excellent. Lambeth's employment as principal of Countryside High School has been under successive annual contracts with the Pinellas County Schools. The contract for the 1997/98 school year provided, in pertinent part: . . . The Board may, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, transfer and assign the Employee to a similar position in any other location of the district, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned, and the salary shall be heretofore set forth. * * * 5. The Board may suspend or remove the Employee for just cause. The Employee shall not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Employee be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. * * * 11. Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions, hereof, or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice. On April 28, 1998, Lambeth again was appointed to a position for the 1998/99 school year, "subject to assignment and transfer." Lambeth accepted the appointment on May 8, 1998. There exist Pinellas Administrators Association Personnel Practices and Grievance Procedures. These documents were developed jointly by the Superintendent of Schools and the Executive Board of the Pinellas Administrators Association; they were approved by the School Board on July 14, 1976. The Personnel Practices provide in pertinent part: COMPLAINTS A. Complaints, oral or written, involving administrators or supervisors shall be investigated through line offices. A copy of such a complaint shall be immediately forwarded to the employee concerned so that he may respond. The employee shall be entitled to know the name of the person or group making the complaint. * * * TERMINATION Termination for Cause. Administrative and supervisory personnel may be terminated for cause on the same grounds as delineated in F.S. 231.36(6) at the discretion of the School Board. Termination shall include discharge, suspension without pay, demotion in salary or status, or any other action involving fault on the part of such administrator or supervisor. * * * C. Any administrator or supervisor terminated for cause subjected to a personnel action as defined above shall have the right to register his complaint through the Pinellas administrators' grievance procedures. However, the significance of these documents is not clear; nor is it clear that they are still are applicable at this time. They apparently are not duly promulgated School Board policy, and the School Board does not refer to them in the conduct of its employment relationships. They also are not part of Lambeth's employment contract. Even if generally applicable, it also was not clear whether they would apply to administrators who are not members of the Pinellas Administrators Association, and there was no evidence that Lambeth is a member. In August 1997, someone approached Countryside assistant principal, Kathleen Novak, to explain the circumstances of a 1997 graduate. The student was a few points short of the minimum grade required in certain core high school courses by either his college's admission requirements, the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) athletic scholarship requirements, or both. Novak went to her principal, Lambeth, to discuss the matter. Another assistant principal, Paula Flott, also participated in the discussion. The outcome of the discussion was that Lambeth asked Novak and Flott to try to contact "their" teachers (i.e., the teachers "assigned" to them for purposes of supervision and division of duties) to find out if there were any grades that could be raised enough through re-testing to meet the minimum requirements the student needed to meet. Before contacting the teachers, Novak first had occasion to confer with yet another assistant principal, Henry Moore. Moore helped Novak review the student's report cards and identified two grades he thought could be raised enough to give the student the minimum grade required. One was a "mid-point" grade in a history class the student took during his junior year (1995-96). Under School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.24(2)(g): "At the mid-point of each grade level, i.e., 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, .5, it will be the option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Moore also identified a psychology grade from the student's senior year (1996-97) which was borderline. It is not clear from the evidence whether Moore thought it was necessary to contact the history teacher, David Ferguson, about the mid-point grade. Moore understood Countyside's unwritten policy to be that, if a student improved his or her grade during the grading period, a mid-point grade would be increased to the next higher whole number or letter grade unless the teacher went to the principal to justify deviating from the policy. There was some evidence to suggest that Moore thought Lambeth, as principal, could raise the mid-point grade without re-testing; but the evidence was not clear that Moore communicated this to Novak or Lambeth at the time. In any event, Moore testified to his assumption that Novak would next contact the teachers concerning re-evaluation of the two grades. The next day, Novak reported to Lambeth the results of her conversation with Moore. Lambeth decided that the student should re-take the final examinations in both classes. She testified that she instructed Novak to contact the teachers about the re-evaluations and re-testing. Novak denied receiving explicit instructions to contact the teachers at this point. It is found that Novak would not have disregarded a direct instruction to contact the teachers. It is more probable that Lambeth simply instructed Novak to proceed to take care of it and assumed that Novak would contact the teachers. Novak also saw Flott that day. Flott told Novak that Flott had not contacted any of "her" teachers yet. Novak told Flott not to worry about it, that Novak had "taken care of it." Flott assumed Novak meant Novak had contacted the teachers. Actually, Novak meant that, since the two grades Novak and Moore already had been identified were enough, there was no need for Flott to contact any of "her" teachers. At this time during the summer, the teachers were on vacation, and Novak researched files of past exams maintained by the school administration to document grades and reproduced the final exams for the grades she and Moore had identified. Novak then made arrangements for the student to retake the exams and notified Lambeth that the student had improved his grades enough to meet the student's college requirements. When Novak reported to Lambeth, the deadline for the student's college requirements was imminent. Lambeth assumed but did not ask whether Novak had contacted the teachers whose grades were involved. Lambeth did not ask to see any documentation of the teachers' assent to a grade change or any documentation of the retesting. Lambeth just told Novak to change the grades in the official records and notify the college and/or the NCAA. Novak responded that she did not know how to do this. Lambeth told her to get assistance from clerical personnel who knew how to change grades; Lambeth herself took care of notifying the college and/or the NCAA. To notify the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth modified a form used by Countryside's athletic department to document that a student-athlete's grade had been properly re-evaluated so as to regain eligibility to participate in interscholastic athletics. The form utilized had a place for the signature of the teacher whose grade was being re-evaluated. In modifying the form for purposes of notifying the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth deleted the provision for the teacher's signature. Lambeth signed the form as principal on August 15, 1997, and sent the notification to the college and/or the NCAA. Lambeth denied that she deleted the teacher signature provision in the form because she knew the teachers were unaware of the grade re-evaluations. Although the teachers were at school on August 15, 1997, preparing for the start of the 1997-98 school year, Lambeth said she dispensed with the teacher signature provision in order to expedite the notification. A few days after the start of the 1997-98 school year, the girl friend of the student whose grades were changed told Ferguson that the student had retaken Ferguson's final exam. Ferguson was busy and told the girl that they would discuss it later, which they did about a month later. For another month or more, Ferguson did nothing about it. Towards the end of October or early November 1997, Ferguson approached Lambeth to let her know what had happened and that students were talking about it. To his surprise, Lambeth told him she knew all about it, having been directly involved herself in the grade re-evaluation. Lambeth did not act as if she saw anything wrong with what was done; she even seemed proud of her participation. Ferguson, who did not think it was right for one of his assigned grades to be re-evaluated without his knowledge, was taken off-guard by Lambeth's response and decided not to say anything else about it at the time. In about December 1997, Ferguson found the time to spend several hours looking into the circumstances of the grade re-evaluations. He discovered that the grades were changed in the student's official transcript, but that the changes were not otherwise documented. The lack of documentation also seemed wrong to Ferguson. During the spring semester of the 1997-98 school year, Ferguson approached Jim Watters, the psychology teacher whose assigned grade was changed. By this time, Watters was at a different school, and Ferguson thought it would be logical for Watters to be the one to complain about the grade changes since Ferguson not only still was at Countryside but also had to deal with Lambeth in his capacity as Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA) union representative. Watters told Ferguson that he did not want to complain because he was near retirement and did not want controversy at that point in his career. Subsequently, Ferguson sought the advice of the PCTA as to whether he would be opening himself to discipline if he did not report the incident to the school district administration. It was concluded that the incident should be reported. On April 23, 1998, Rik McNeill of the PCTA contacted Dr. Martha O'Howell, an administrator in the school district's Office of Professional Standards, to report the grade change incident; the next day, Jade Moore of the PCTA sent O'Howell a letter reporting the incident. On or about April 30, 1998, O'Howell's office began an investigation of the reported incident. On May 11, 1998, O'Howell interviewed Lambeth, Novak, and others at Countryside and took written statements from them. When O'Howell told Lambeth that teachers had complained, Lambeth wondered aloud why, since they had participated. Novak's statement, on the other hand, was that the teachers were not notified or involved because they were not at school at the time. On May 14, 1998, O'Howell re-interviewed Lambeth and Novak. In her re-interview of Lambeth, the principal maintained her understanding that Novak had discussed re-testing with the teachers whose grades were involved. During her re-interview of Novak, O'Howell asked Novak for the second time to produce the re-tests she administered, but Novak reiterated that she could not find the re-tests or any documentation that re-testing had in fact taken place. She got the impression that O'Howell questioned the truth of her assertion that re-tests actually had been administered and became defensive. Novak got the impression that it was very important for her to be able to produce the re- tests. On May 21, 1998, Novak submitted a supplement to her earlier written statement. In the supplement, Novak expressed confusion about Ferguson's complaint in light of her recollection that Ferguson had told her "emphatically last year that it wasn't his responsibility to give early exams or make up exams if they might extend beyond contract hours" and said: "That's administration's problem, not mine." Afraid of what might happen to her if she could not produce the re-tests (that it could end her career and jeopardize her retirement benefits), Novak panicked. She tried to again re- produce the examination questions, and she forged answers. She presented the forgeries to O'Howell on June 2, 1998. O'Howell quickly saw through Novak's inept forgeries for what they were, and Novak was in even more trouble than she thought she was in before the forgeries. On or about June 9, 1998, Lambeth asked for a meeting with the investigator and Area Supervisor Bill Williamson. Their assessment of the situation was that it was "serious"; they suggested that Lambeth consider what parents would think. But Lambeth also knew about Novak's forgeries and assumed that Novak had become the focus of the investigation, not her. Indeed, at a meeting on June 18, 1998, O'Howell informed Novak that her job was in jeopardy; O'Howell said she was prepared to recommend that the Superintendent terminate her employment. At that point, Novak retained an attorney, who asked to meet with the School Superintendent, J. Howard Hinesley, and the School Board's attorney, Wesley Bridges. The meeting took place on June 24, 1998. At the meeting on June 24, 1998, Novak and her attorney tried to explain to Hinesley and Bridges why Novak forged the re- tests. They also told Hinesley and Bridges that Novak thought Lambeth was trying to blame Novak for the incident but that Lambeth never told Novak to contact the teachers whose grades were involved. Hinesley took this and other information given by Novak at the meeting into consideration in evaluating the situation. Based on the discussion at this meeting, Hinesley decided to reprimand and demote Novak to an instructional position with no reduction in pay, instead of terminating her employment. On or about June 29, 1998, Area Supervisor Williamson told Lambeth that it was time to have a meeting to resolve the matter. Williamson again emphasized that it was "serious," this time communicating to Lambeth that she was also in jeopardy. The meeting was set for July 2, 1998. At this point, Lambeth hired an attorney. The meeting was attended by Lambeth, Hinesley, their attorneys, Williamson, and O'Howell. Lambeth was informed that she was being removed as principal at Countryside for her role in the grade change incident and would be transferred to another position. She was told that a letter to that effect had been mailed to her. She was required to hand over her office keys and was told to make arrangement to clean-out her office at 5 p.m. She was told that she would not be allowed to return to campus without campus police being present. Campus police escorted her to her car. On or about July 8, 1998, Lambeth received Hinesley's letter dated July 2, 1998. Besides reciting facts found through the investigation, the letter accused Lambeth of failing "to ensure that the teachers of the two courses involved had knowledge of or approved the final examination re-takes and the subsequent grade changes" and "to ensure that the re-takes were properly administered and graded and that the results were documented." The letter reprimanded Lambeth for "violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23, as well as the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida." (School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23 sets the district's High School Credit and Student Performance Standards; section (6) of the rule provides that a student's mastery of performance standards "shall be determined by the teacher with the principal's approval.") The letter also stated that Lambeth's conduct "reflects a lack of sound professional judgment and seriously diminishes your effectiveness as a school leader." As a result, the letter stated, Lambeth was being removed her from her position as Countryside High School principal, was being placed on administrative leave, and would be reassigned to another position. By letter dated July 8, 1998, Hinesley notified Lambeth that she was being reassigned as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office. Lambeth's contract was not changed, and her pay was not reduced. Her new position is classified as Level 4 in the School Board's personnel system, while high school principal is a Level 8 position. There are some similarities between the two positions, but there also are differences. Both positions require a master's degree, certification in administration and supervision, and five years of related professional experience; a program supervisor for Title I also requires an additional minimum of three years of teaching experience. Both positions involve working with teachers; but while a principal supervises 95 teachers (plus non-teacher personnel and 1500 to 2000 students) at a school site, a Title I program supervisor works with but does not supervise principals, assistant principals, and teachers at 18 different elementary schools. Both jobs involve budget planning, but the nature of the budgets are different; a Title I program supervisor reviews budgets for federal funds. There is no provision for re-evaluating a student's grades after graduation. There is a policy to allow a student who has passed all 24 courses required to graduate, but did not earn the minimum grade point average (GPA) required to receive a diploma, to "walk" at graduation , receive a "certificate of completion," and return to school in the summer and/or an additional year of high school to re-take classes to hopefully raise his or her GPA enough to receive a high school diploma. But there is no evidence that the student involved in this case did not receive a diploma when he graduated at the end of the 1996-97 school year. He was no longer a student and should not have been able to change his grades at that point. In circumstances when it would be permissible to re- evaluate a student's grades, it should only be done in consultation with the teacher who assigned the grade. Subject to the requirement that grading policies are followed, student grading is the province of the teacher's exercise of professional judgment, subject only to the principal's approval. The integrity of the grading system depends the teacher's exercise of professional judgment. Likewise, the "education contract" among the administration, teachers, students, and parents presumes and requires integrity in the grading process. School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.28(4)(g) is clear that, in the case of "mid-point" grades, it is the "option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Clearly, this policy gives the principal the ability to review the teacher's grade and argue forcefully that a different grade should be assigned. Some teachers would succumb to the principal's choice, either because of the force of the principal's arguments or because of fear of the possible consequences of disagreeing with their principal. The policy may even enable a principal to overrule the teacher. But it is a violation of policy for a principal to change a grade without following the mid-point grade policy. Because of the importance of integrity in the grading system, it is incumbent on the principal to take reasonable steps to ensure that teachers are involved in any grade re-evaluation. Clearly, a principal must delegate responsibilities to assistant principals when necessary and appropriate, and a principal should be entitled to rely on an assistant principal to follow the principal's instructions (whether expressed ad hoc or in policy). For that reason, Lambeth normally would have been entitled to expect an assistant principal to involve the teacher in any grade re-evaluation. But re-evaluation of a student who had graduated was not normal, and Lambeth should have made it clear to Novak that Novak was not to proceed with re-testing and grade re- evaluation without the teachers' participation. It is not clear from the evidence that Lambeth made reasonable efforts make this clear to Novak. By the same token, because the situation was not normal, Lambeth should have made some effort to ensure that Novak properly documented the re-take of the examinations and the grade change instead of relying entirely on Novak. There is no question but that Lambeth's effectiveness as a school leader diminished as a result of this grade change incident. As Lambeth pointed out at final hearing, most principals have their supporters and detractors, and predictably there were some teachers and parents who testified that the grade change incident did not reduce Lambeth's effectiveness as far as they were concerned. But most of these witnesses did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives. Meanwhile, there were many witnesses who testified that Lambeth's effectiveness was seriously diminished in their view, and they were not all detractors of Lambeth; they included Hinesley, other Pinellas County school administrators, retired Pinellas County School Superintendent Scott Rose, administrators from other school districts, teachers at other schools, and parents. Some of these also did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives; but some knew all or most of the facts and circumstances and spoke from broader perspectives. Some witnesses expressed the idea that the reduction in effectiveness would not be insurmountable or permanent if Lambeth would admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again. Unfortunately, Lambeth did not admit error until her testimony at the end of her case-in-chief. While she complained that she was not given the opportunity to do so before the meeting on July 2, 1998, she missed innumerable opportunities since; indeed, much of her case seemed aimed at proving that she had done nothing wrong. The authenticity of her eleventh-hour repentance is suspect. At the same time, while Lambeth's effectiveness certainly was diminished by the incident (and her refusal to admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again), it is not clear just how seriously her effectiveness has been diminished. There were mitigating factors. First, Lambeth has an excellent record as an effective administrator. Second, while her efforts were misguided, her motive was to help a student gain educational benefits. The student was African- American and, while the Petitioner criticized Lambeth for testifying in deposition that the student's minority status was a factor in her efforts to help, the School Board in fact has a policy of emphasizing the delivery of educational benefits to minority students. Also, after what she has been through, it seems unlikely that Lambeth would be foolish enough to repeat this or any similar grade change blunder in the future. A reprimand and reassignment to Title I program supervisor certainly is a setback for Lambeth's career as a school principal. But, contrary to Lambeth's concern and contention in this case, it is found that such an action does not necessarily mean the end of Lambeth's career as a school principal in this or any other school district. Certainly, if Lambeth's offense is as minor as she contends it was, she may well be able to convince a school superintendent other than Hinesley to assign her as a school principal. It certainly seemed that retired School Superintendent Rose would have been open to the idea; there is no reason to be certain that others may not also consider Lambeth for a principal position. If Hinesley's position as Pinellas School Superintendent is as tenuous as Lambeth's evidence attempted to suggest (i.e., that he may be just one School Board vote from being the former Pinellas School Superintendent), the chances are that it may not be long before Lambeth could apply to a subsequent Pinellas School Superintendent for such a position. It even seems possible (although perhaps not likely) that Hinesley himself might reconsider and reassign Lambeth as a principal at some point in the future. Lambeth also contended that other School Board employees have been treated more leniently for worse offenses. But the evidence did not prove selective enforcement against Lambeth. The other situations either were too dissimilar to compare, or Lambeth's treatment was not clearly excessively harsh by comparison. Lambeth first points to the treatment of Novak. While it is true that Novak forged the re-tests, she was Lambeth's subordinate and subject to Lambeth's direction, and her treatment (reassignment to a completely nonsupervisory position) was somewhat harsher than Lambeth's. Lambeth also points to Ferguson, who Lambeth contends went unpunished after alleged violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-6.22 by posting a copy of a portion of the School Board's investigative report on Lambeth and Novak on the bulletin board in the teacher's lounge. But Policy 6Gx52-6.22 provides: Employees shall not use the classroom, nor any other part of school facilities, as a platform for making disparaging remarks against students, parents, teachers and/or administrators. Conduct contrary to this policy may constitute grounds for disciplinary action. In addition, it is not clear that posting information about an investigation that was of genuine concern to the teachers is the same thing as using the bulletin board "as a platform for making disparaging remarks." Nonetheless, Lambeth's replacement as Countryside's principal considered the posting to be bad for morale and asked Ferguson to remove it. Initially, Ferguson refused to remove it; eventually, he removed it at the request of and as a favor to Jade Moore of the PCTA. (The evidence was that Hinesley was not aware of the posting.) Lambeth's other evidence on this point consisted of letters of reprimand to a principal and an assistant principal for not following proper procedures and immediately notifying the proper authorities of allegations of sexual abuse. It is not clear that these offenses are so similar to Lambeth's as to have required the School Board in fairness to also remove and reassign them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for a Name Clearing, Due Process and Florida Statute 120.57 Hearing and approving the reassignment of the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, to Title I program supervisor under the same contract and at the same pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Blasingame, Esquire Orange Park Center 696 First Avenue, North, Suite 400 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers & Coleman, P.A. 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued on July 22, 2005, by Respondent, John Winn, acting in his capacity as the Commissioner of Education.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 28, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education notified Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, that it intended to suspend, revoke, or limit his teaching certificate. The proposed action was based on allegations that Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with three female students, engaged in inappropriate conduct with a female teacher in December 2000, and was convicted of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. An administrative hearing was conducted with respect to Petitioner's Ohio teaching certificate on March 11 and 14, 2002. The hearing was conducted in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Ohio Revised Code. Petitioner appeared at the hearing, was represented by counsel, and testified on his own behalf. There were three alleged incidents involving allegations of Petitioner's inappropriate conduct with female students that were litigated during the Ohio administrative proceedings. The first alleged incident occurred during the 1999-2000 school year when Petitioner was employed at Northland High School. The other two incidents allegedly occurred during the 2000-2001 school year when Petitioner was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven High School. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 1999-2000 school year, while a teacher at Northland High School, Petitioner inappropriately touched Ms. Tranette Nicole Jackson, a student in his science class. At the time of the incident, Ms. Jackson was about fifteen and a high school freshman.3 During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Ms. Jackson testified that on March 21, 2000, Petitioner called Ms. Jackson up to his desk and told her he wanted to see her after class.4 At the end of class, with no one else present in the classroom, Ms. Jackson reported to Petitioner's desk. Petitioner then touched Ms. Jackson's leg and rubbed her skirt, raising the skirt. Petitioner then told Ms. Jackson that he needed to see her in the supply room, which was across the hall from the classroom. Ms. Jackson accompanied Petitioner into the supply room, where Petitioner put both hands on Ms. Jackson's buttocks and stated, "This is what I wanted to talk to you about. Keep it to yourself." Ms. Jackson testified that Petitioner then gave her a pass to her next class. Ms. Jackson testified that she was "confused," "scared," and "uncomfortable" about the incident and that she reported it to one of her teachers that same day. The incident was then reported to the school principal and the Franklin County Children Services. After the incident, Ms. Jackson was reassigned from Petitioner's science class to another class. During the Ohio proceedings, Petitioner testified that he never touched Ms. Jackson, but that he reprimanded her for her inappropriate attire. Petitioner testified that in instances where students had on inappropriate attire, the school policy required teachers to send such students to the front office. Notwithstanding the school policy, Petitioner testified that he spoke with Ms. Jackson alone and after class concerning her attire. This failure to abide by school policy lends credence to Ms. Jackson's version of events. Moreover, Petitioner's complete inability on cross-examination during the instant hearing to provide his version of the incident leads the undersigned to accept Ms. Jackson's testimony.5 In the 2000-2001 school year, Petitioner was transferred from Northland High School to Brookhaven High School (Brookhaven), where he taught ninth grade science. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 2000-2001 school year, while he was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven, Petitioner engaged in two incidents involving inappropriate conduct with female students and one incident involving inappropriate conduct with a female teacher. In one instance, it was alleged that on December 19, 2000, about a day before the Christmas break, Petitioner asked a female student, identified as Student 2, to come to his room after school and give him a hug. It was alleged that the student refused to comply with Petitioner's request and reported the alleged incident to school officials. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Judith Gore, the assistant principal for student services at Brookhaven, one school official to whom Student 2 reported the incident, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Gore testified that in January 2001, Student 2 told her that on or about December 19, 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 and told her to give him a hug after school and that when she came to the room she should not wear her jacket. Ms. Gore also testified that Student 2 reported that although Petitioner approached her and requested a hug in December 2000, Student 2 told her that she reported it in January 2001, soon after and because Petitioner approached her in January 2001, after the Christmas break, and asked why she had not come to his room and hugged him in December 2000, before the winter holiday. Ms. Gore also testified that as a result of Petitioner's comments, the student was extremely uncomfortable. Ms. Gore testified that she later attended a conference with the student's father and Petitioner regarding the incident. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Petitioner testified at the Ohio administrative hearing that he asked Student 2 for a hug on or about December 19, 2000, the day before winter recess. Petitioner testified that Student 2 was in the hallway, and he said to her, "Hey, yeah, give me a hug. It's Christmas time. I wish you a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas." Petitioner testified that at the time he requested that Student 2 give him a hug, she was not in any of his classes, but was one of his student assistants. In fact, Petitioner testified that when he requested that Student 2 give him a hug after school, she was not in his classroom, but was in the hall at her locker. Petitioner testified that because December 19, 2000, was the day before the Christmas recess, it was not unusual for students to hug him. However, Petitioner testified that Student 2 did not make any overtures indicating she wanted to hug him. Rather, Petitioner testified that he approached Student 2 and asked her to hug him. Based on Petitioner's testimony in the Ohio hearing and the instant proceeding, regarding Student 2, it is found that in December 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 while she was in the hall at her locker and asked her to give him a hug. Ms. Gore testified that during December 2000, a different female student, Student 3, complained to her that Petitioner had touched her buttocks while passing behind her. Student 3 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding, and no evidence was presented at the Ohio administrative proceeding or the instant administrative hearing to establish this charge. At the Ohio administrative proceeding, the Ohio State Board of Education litigated the allegation that Petitioner had engaged in inappropriate behavior with a teacher at Brookhaven. Mary Williams, who was a co-worker of Petitioner at Brookhaven High School, testified in the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Williams testified that, in December 2000, while she was standing at the counter in the main office of the school, Petitioner passed by and intentionally brushed against her buttocks. Ms. Williams also testified that the office was large enough so that Mr. Crowder needed not to touch her at all. Ms. Williams was upset by Petitioner's actions and informed him, in graphic language, what would happen if he ever did it again. Petitioner then apologized to Ms. Williams. Petitioner's testimony concerning the incident involving Ms. Williams is conflicting. For instance, Petitioner testified during the Ohio proceedings that if he brushed his hand against Mr. Williams' buttocks, it was purely accidental. During the instant proceedings, however, Petitioner acknowledged that he touched Ms. Williams' buttocks, but explained that it occurred accidentally as a result of his carrying a meter stick through the office area. At no time during Petitioner's prior testimony did he mention that the touching occurred with a meter stick, or even that he was carrying a meter stick. Accordingly, the undersigned finds Ms. Williams' testimony to be more credible. John Tornes, the personnel director for Columbus City Schools, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding that as a result of the accumulation of allegations and incidents, Petitioner was assigned to work at home, effective January 29, 2001. The following day, January 30, 2001, Petitioner was assigned to a location where he had no contact with students. On March 26, 2001, Petitioner resigned from the Columbus City Schools, effective June 8, 2001. Mr. Tornes testified that Petitioner was not eligible for rehire. Mr. Tornes explained: During every year of Mr. Crowder's employment, there was an allegation of sexual harassment or abuse; three straight years of it while at Crestview Middle School [sic],[6] while at Northland High School, and then the incident just kept ballooning at Brookhaven High School. . . . His behavior became so questionable that it was no longer feasible for the district to continue his employment. The Ohio State Board of Education litigated the issue of Petitioner's conviction of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. During the Ohio proceedings, Jill S. Harris testified on behalf of the Ohio State Board of Education. Ms. Harris testified that for about a year, beginning in 1999, she was involved in a rocky relationship with Petitioner. During that period, Petitioner and Ms. Harris were living together. According to Ms. Harris, on October 7, 2000, Petitioner, after a night of drinking, arrived home at approximately 5:30 a.m., at which point a violent argument ensued. During their confrontation, Petitioner struck Ms. Harris twice in the face, bruising her chin and cheek and cutting her lip. At some point during the argument, Ms. Harris summoned the police. However, when they arrived, Ms. Harris informed the responding officers that nothing was wrong due to her fear of retaliation from Petitioner. Ms. Harris testified that after the police left, the Petitioner picked up a glass table and threw it at her, breaking the table. Petitioner also grabbed Ms. Harris, at which point she cut her foot on the broken glass. Ms. Harris then left the house and called the police from the vehicle she was driving. Soon after Ms. Harris called, police officers met Ms. Harris and returned with her to the house where she and Petitioner lived. When they arrived there, Petitioner was not there. Officer Sheri Laverack was one of the police officers who met with Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident, and investigated the matter. At the Ohio administrative proceedings, Officer Laverack testified that soon after the altercation between Ms. Harris and Petitioner, she observed that Ms. Harris' "lip had been busted and her face was swelling and the bottom of her foot was cut." Officer Laverack also observed that there was bruising around one of Ms. Harris' eyes. At both the Ohio administrative proceeding and in the instant proceeding, Petitioner denied that he struck Ms. Harris in the face and caused the injuries to her face that were observed by Officer Laverack. However, it is found that his testimony was not found to be credible by the hearing examiner presiding over the Ohio administrative hearing. Petitioner has offered conflicting testimony with respect to the incident involving Ms. Harris and the cause of her facial injuries. During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner testified that he slammed his hand down on the glass table, causing it to come up and hit her. At no time during the Ohio proceeding did Petitioner testify that Ms. Harris lifted up the table or in any way contributed to the facial injuries she suffered. However, during the instant proceeding, Petitioner testified that when he hit the glass table, Ms. Harris "pulled the top of it up, and I think it [the glass portion of the table] hit her in the chin or something to that effect." Petitioner then testified that "I don't really recall . . . that's what I vaguely recall." Petitioner's testimony concerning the October 7, 2000, incident and how Ms. Harris sustained the injuries to her face is inconsistent and not credible. In light of the multiple injuries to Ms. Harris' face (a cut to her lip, swelling on the right side of her face, and bruising around her eye), it is unlikely that Ms. Harris' injuries could have been sustained in the manner described by Petitioner. Petitioner's testimony in the instant proceeding that he did not hit Ms. Harris is not credible. On the other hand, given the nature of the injuries, it is more probable that Ms. Harris' injuries resulted from Petitioner's hitting her, as she testified. It is found that Ms. Harris' testimony that Petitioner struck her in the face was credible. Moreover, Ms. Harris' credible testimony was substantiated by the testimony of Officer Laverack, who observed the injuries to Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident. As a result of the October 7, 2000, incident, Ms. Harris filed domestic violence and assault charges against Petitioner. Ultimately, as a result of the incident, Petitioner was charged with disorderly conduct. On June 25, 2001, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to the amended charge of disorderly conduct. Pursuant to an agreement with the State of Ohio, Petitioner was sentenced to 30 days in jail, with the sentence being suspended if and when Petitioner made restitution of $1,000 to Ms. Harris for the damage to her table. Petitioner paid the restitution. At the time of the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner had a four-year middle school teaching certificate with an expiration date of June 30, 2002, and had applied for a temporary teaching certificate. On April 2, 2002, the Ohio hearing examiner submitted a recommended order to the Ohio State Board of Education. In the recommended order, the hearing officer found that Petitioner sexually abused Ms. Jackson, inappropriately touched Ms. Williams, and committed an act of violence against Ms. Harris. In addition, the hearing examiner recommended that the Ohio State Board of Education revoke Petitioner's teaching certificate and deny his application for a temporary teaching certificate. In a Resolution dated May 16, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education revoked Petitioner's teaching certificate. The Resolution was adopted by the Ohio State Board of Education at its meeting on May 14, 2002. The Ohio State Board of Education's Resolution stated that it was revoking Petitioner's middle school teaching certificate "based upon his 2001 conviction for disorderly conduct stemming from domestic violence and inappropriate sexual contact with three female students and one female teacher during 2000 and 2001." Petitioner appealed the decision of the Ohio State Board of Education. The Ohio State Board of Education's decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Ohio Court of Common Pleas on August 11, 2003, in Case No. 02CVF06-6230.7 The testimony of Ms. Harris, Ms. Williams, Ms. Jackson, Officer Laverack, Mr. Tornes, and Ms. Gore in the Ohio proceeding constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule under Subsection 90.803(22), Florida Statutes.8 Therefore, the testimony of the foregoing named individuals in the Ohio administrative proceeding is sufficient in itself to support a finding of fact and does not run afoul of Subsection 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes.9 Petitioner's conduct fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable standard, it is wrong for a teacher to brush his hands on the buttocks of a student and of a fellow colleague. The wrong is compounded when the teacher instructs the student to conceal the fact that he engaged in such conduct. During his testimony, Petitioner admitted that he asked a high school student to give him a hug. By any reasonable standard, this conduct fell short of right behavior that defines good moral character. Petitioner's testimony regarding the circumstances and appropriateness of such a request is not credible or persuasive. Neither does Petitioner's explanation provide a reasonable basis for a teacher to solicit a hug from any student. Petitioner's conduct of committing acts of violence against the woman with whom he lived likewise fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defined good moral behavior. The three incidents in which Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with Ms. Jackson, Student 2, and Ms. Williams, occurred at school. The incident involving Ms. Jackson, one of his students, occurred on school grounds in March 2000. The conduct in which Petitioner engaged with Student 2 and with Ms. Williams, his colleague, occurred at school in December 2000. Petitioner's pattern of conduct with two female students and a female teacher demonstrates that he is an unsuitable candidate for a teaching certificate. Moreover, Petitioner's conduct as established by the facts of this case, particularly as it directly involved students at the school, bears directly on his fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. The evidence failed to establish that Petitioner possesses the good moral character required of a teacher in this state. For this reason, Petitioner is not eligible for certification. The evidence establishes that Petitioner committed an act or acts for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teaching certificate. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality of an act involving moral turpitude. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has had a teaching certificate revoked in another state. The evidence establishes that Petitioner pled guilty and was convicted of the misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. The evidence establishes that Petitioner failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or public safety. The evidence establishes that Petitioner intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The evidence establishes that Petitioner exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct, which unreasonably interfered in an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment and, further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he be permanently barred from re- application pursuant to Subsection 1012.796(7)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 24th day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, should be terminated from her employment as an instructional employee with the Broward County school system.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its six count Petition for Dismissal, Petitioner, through the person of its Superintendent of Schools, William T. McFatter, seeks to uphold its recommendation that Respondent, Alfreda Grady, be dismissed from employment in the Broward County school system. Respondent, Alfreda Grady, was an instructional employee at the School Board of Broward County until she was suspended with pay from her duties at the close of the workday on January 27, 1983. Respondent holds a continuing contract of employment and holds teaching certificates in both guidance and elementary education. During the course of the 1982-83 school year, Respondent was assigned to the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. This assignment was made by Mr. Thomas Wilson, Assistant to the south area Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. Ms. Grady was later assigned to teach sixth grade orientation and social studies. On January 27, 1983, Respondent was placed on emergency suspension and a PETITION FOR DISMISSAL from the Broward County school system was filed based on charges of incompetency, misconduct in office, immorality and gross insubordination. A request was made for a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was thereafter assigned to the undersigned hearing officer to conduct the instant hearing. On August 19, 1982, Respondent was assigned the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. Prior to this assignment, the position of guidance counselor had been assigned to Ms. Ricci Mandell, a teacher previously employed at Attucks. This assignment was made by Taft Green, principal at Attucks Middle School. Both Ms. Grady and Ms. Mandell were retained in the Guidance Department. Approximately two weeks into the school year, Respondent was assigned to teach one sixth grade orientation class. It is not unusual for a teacher to be assigned teaching duties in more than one subject area. (TR Volume 1, p. 193) By letter dated September 1, 1982, Mr. Green informed Respondent that she would begin teaching the orientation class on September 7, 1982. Respondent was also informed by Mr. Green that Ms. Friedman, a reading teacher at Attucks, would supply the necessary material and a course syllabus. Ms. Friedman had previously taught the orientation course during the 1981-82 school year. Respondent was advised that principal Green and the other instructional employees were available to assist her, as needed. Although Respondent never contacted Ms. Friedman for either assistance or to obtain the material, Ms. Friedman supplied the Respondent with a variety of materials to be used in teaching the orientation course including the course guide for middle school orientation and two instructional television books. (TR Volume 1, p. 166) Respondent refused to teach the orientation course. The class was used as either a study hall or the students watched programs such as "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America." On September 15, 1982, Respondent was assigned to teach two sixth grade social studies classes. A memo reflecting this assignment was sent both to Respondent and Ms. Mandell, dividing the guidance position between them and assigning them each three classes. (Petitioner's Exhibit P) Mr. Green divided the counselor duties between Respondent and Ms. Mandell based on budgetary considerations. That is, Attucks could not afford three guidance counselors and instead of terminating one instructional employee, the guidance counselor assignments were divided. (TP Volume 1, pp. 204 - 205) On November 3, 1982, Mr. Green began, via a memo, to change Respondent from a guidance position to a teaching position reciting in the memo that the change was based on a report from Rod Sasse, an educational guidance specialist for the Petitioner. Mr. Sasse conducted a study of the Attucks Guidance Department and determined that the Department needed to be restructured. He determined that two full-time counselors were more effective than one full-time and two part- time guidance counselors. Thus, Respondent was assigned a teaching position without any counseling duties. Respondent has refused to perform her assigned duties by Mr. Taft Green citing, inter alia, that the course materials provided her were inadequate or incomplete; that she was not educationally trained and therefore unqualified to teach the assigned duties; that she received no help or assistance from other instructional employees at Attucks and that she was not interested in taking the needed steps to either become qualified or otherwise competent to teach the assigned social studies and orientation classes. Prior to her November 10, 1982 assignment by principal Taft Green, Respondent was afforded one (1) week to prepare for the assigned classes. Additionally, she was given two TDA's (temporary duty assignments) to prepare for the social studies classes. Additionally, Respondent received a course syllabus and other material from other faculty and staff and offers of help from supervisory employees. (Testimony of Green; Carole Fischer, Social Studies Department Head; Mark Thomas, author of the course guide for middle school orientation and Dr. Benjamin Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel) Respondent made repeated statements, oral and written, to students, other instructional employees, supervisors, principal Green and the press evidencing her lack of interest in performing the assigned duties of teaching social studies and/or orientation. Respondent also cited as one of the reasons of her inability to teach the assigned classes was due to the fact that her students were not functioning at the same level of achievement and therefore it was impossible for her to teach students who are functioning at different progress levels. It is hereby found that it is indeed normal for students to function at varying progress levels and that teachers who are at all interested in performing the duties of an instructional employee, readily adjust to the varying progress levels of students and welcome the challenge of such an adjustment. As stated, Respondent repeatedly refused to perform her assigned duties as an instructional employee for the orientation and social studies classes. Based on this refusal to teach, Respondent assigned 148 out of 150 students a grade of incomplete or "I." Respondent was repeatedly directed to provide grades for her students by principal Green including written demands on January 19, 20, 21 and 25, 1983. On the last two demands on January 21 and 25, 1983, Respondent was further advised that her failure to assign grades to students would be regarded as gross insubordination. Respondent would not and, in fact, refused to teach her students any of the subject areas to which she was assigned by principal Taft Green. A typical day spent in the Respondent's classroom consisted primarily of the students either performing independent work which usually was in the form of preparing for other classes or doing homework which was assigned by other instructional staff or in the case of the orientation class, students would watch programs such as "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show." Respondent performed some minimal teaching including map and globe assignments. However, in the normal day, Respondent would permit students to perform either independent work or repeatedly view film strips. As a result of such repetition, students became bored. A number of Respondent's students expressed a desire to learn skills in the social studies classes which they were attending. It is also found that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been severely damaged due to the wide notoriety that this case has received, the public statements and/or admissions by the Respondent denoting her lack of interest in teaching the assigned classes and the expressed concern of other staff and parents concerned about entrusting their children to Respondent's class in view of her admitted lack of care and disregard for the educational and social welfare of the students in her class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County, enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, from employment with the Broward County school system. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 17th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Deborah Green, hold Florida teaching certificate 586445, covering the areas of Math, Elementary Education and Educational Leadership. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. During the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent was a teacher in the Pinellas County Schools GOALS program at Dixie Hollins High School. GOALS stands for Graduation Options - Alternative to Leaving School. It is a drop-out prevention program. Although the evidence did not describe the GOALS program in detail, the evidence suggests that GOALS teachers may be in the position of having to change some of the rules of regular education in order to keep students from dropping out and yet may still be subject to criticism for not conforming to the rules of regular education. Put another way, there appears to be the potential for some of the priorities of the GOALS program to be inconsistent with some of the priorities of regular education, and it was not clear from the evidence how GOALS teachers are supposed to balance the competing interests. One of the Respondent's GOALS students in history class during the 1991/1992 school year was Andrew Patrick. By definition, as a GOALS student, he was at risk to drop out when he entered the program. He also was a poor student, especially in math. Emotionally, Patrick seemed to suffer from an abnormally strong need to feel popular while at the same time failing to realize that the results of his efforts to be popular generally were the opposite of what he intended. After letting down his guard and allowing himself to be friendly and civil with the Respondent, he soon came to like her personally. At the same time, he seemed to sense (probably correctly) that a personal relationship with the Respondent, who was a very popular teacher, could make him popular by association. Over time, a close teacher-student relationship developed between the Respondent and Patrick. The Respondent was able to use this relationship to further her goal of keeping Patrick interested in school. In addition, the Respondent discovered that Patrick became more interested in school the more he was allowed to help the Respondent in the classroom. As a means of legitimate "positive stroking," the Respondent gave Patrick more and more responsibilities in her classroom and praised him for carrying them out successfully. Over time, Patrick developed an adolescent crush on the Respondent. He became unusually interested in her and in the details of her personal life. He learned, accidentally at first, that the Respondent was dating a man named Michael Miller, who was married and who was the principal of another Pinellas County high school. He questioned her repeatedly about her relationship with Miller and also pestered the Respondent's adopted daughter, who also was in the GOALS program, for information about the Respondent and her personal life. (Actually, the girl was the daughter of a close friend of the Respondent. The Respondent and her friend helped each other raise their children. Both families lived in the Respondent's home, and the Respondent referred to the girl as her daughter.) In addition, for a student, he bought her relatively expensive gifts; he also bought her gifts more frequently than the other students. The Respondent did little to discourage Patrick's obvious crush on her. Instead, she exploited it, in part in furtherance of her objectives as his GOALS teacher but also, during the 1992/1993 school year, in part for her benefit. During the 1992/1993 school year, Patrick's role in the Respondent's pre-algebra classroom expanded to what seemed to be practically the Respondent's personal assistant. The Respondent gave Patrick a desk at the front of the classroom near her teacher desk, facing the students, such as a teaching assistant might have. The Respondent had Patrick prepare weekly GOALS progress reports for her to fill out for each student. (He wrote her name in the appropriate blank, but it was not proven that the blank necessarily called for her signature or initials, as opposed to just her identity as teacher.) The Respondent also had Patrick maintain the hall passes for her use. When a student needed a hall pass, she referred the student to Patrick to get one. Patrick would fill out the hall pass and give it to the student. Usually, the hall pass required the Respondent's signature but, on occasion, Patrick forged the Respondent's signature. When the Respondent was made aware that Patrick had forged her signature, she admonished him not to, but she did not monitor very closely or control him very well. The Respondent also had Patrick complete daily attendance slips to be picked up by a runner from the administrative offices. The Respondent also had Patrick use an answer key to grade daily class assignments and some quizzes for his class and other classes she taught and had him enter the grades in a grade book. (There also was one other student who used an answer key to grade some daily class assignments and some quizzes and enter the grades in a grade book for the Respondent, but the other student was not nearly as heavily involved in these activities as Patrick.) It is not clear from the evidence whether Patrick and the other student entered the daily class assignment and quiz grades in the Respondent's official class grade book or in one of the other grade books that the Respondent maintained for other purposes. Patrick usually performed tasks for the Respondent during math class, but sometimes (as the Respondent was aware) he left other academic classes during the school day to the Respondent's classroom to perform tasks for her. Patrick rarely took quizzes himself. The Respondent had determined that Patrick did not test well, and she devised alternative means of measuring his progress in her classroom. Often, Patrick didn't even know when the Respondent was evaluating and grading what he was doing for her in the classroom. Patrick relished his role as the Respondent's assistant, applied himself to it and did a very good job in the role. He obviously tried very hard to please the Respondent, and she gave Patrick credit for his effort and performance. But it seems questionable how the Respondent fairly and accurately could have evaluated and graded Patrick's progress, especially in a class like pre-algebra, based on his performance in the tasks she was assigning him to do for her in the classroom. On the other hand, what she was doing kept Patrick in school, and there was no evidence that the general approach was incorrect in the context of a GOALS program pre-algebra class. During the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent was under stress at least in part due to her relationship with Miller. It probably comforted her to an extent to allow Patrick to draw her into discussions about subjects such as her relationship with Miller. She stopped short of discussing the intimate details of the relationship, but in some respects Patrick could use his imagination to fill in the blanks. Later in the fall, the Respondent had to deal with the additional stress of having to decide whether to accept an offer of marriage from a well-to-do friend from Texas. She freely discussed her dilemma with Patrick. By January, 1993, the Respondent was having serious difficulty handling the stress and began to suffer physical symptoms. She accepted the advice of her chiropractor, who was treating the physical symptoms of her stress, to take a medical leave of absence. Her application for leave was approved through June 11, 1993, and she began her leave on January 27, 1993. When Patrick inquired about the Respondent's absence from school, and was told that she was gone and probably would not be back, he became hysterical. He went to the principal's office and angrily accused the principal of getting rid of the Respondent because of her relationship with Miller (which the principal knew nothing about) because he was confidant that his (Patrick's) relationship with the Respondent was much too close for her to have left voluntarily without consulting with him. He described the nature of their relationship. When the principal denied that he had anything to do with it, Patrick began to blame himself, saying that he had encouraged the Respondent to drop her relationship with Miller and marry the friend from Texas. The principal calmed Patrick down and had him sent home. That evening, Patrick's mother telephoned the principal to complain about the Respondent. She had talked to her son and obtained new information from him about his relationship with the Respondent and his role in her classroom. After receiving the mother's telephone call, the principal telephoned the Respondent to inform her that a student had made serious allegations about her and that the student's mother had called him very upset. He would not tell her what the allegations were but told her the name of the student. The Respondent declined to talk about it further over the telephone but readily agreed to meet with the principal, Patrick and his mother the next day at 1:00 p.m. The Respondent also agreed to write Patrick and his mother to explain that she was on medical leave of absence. It was not proven that the principal told the Respondent not to talk to Patrick before their meeting the next day. On the morning of the next day, the Respondent telephoned the school office to have Patrick paged to speak to her. The office assistant told her that she only could do so if it was an emergency. The Respondent told her that it was. The Respondent spoke with Patrick for about ten minutes. She asked Patrick what he had said to the principal. When he told her, she admonished him that his statements had put her at risk of losing her job and that he had better "get his story straight." He correctly interpreted her to mean that she wanted him to recant his statements in order to protect her and her job. At the meeting at 1:00 p.m., Patrick recanted his earlier statements and claimed that his mother had blown everything out of proportion. It was improper for the Respondent to use Patrick (and, to a lesser extent, the other student), as she did during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year, as a personal assistant to grade class papers for her and enter grades in grade books for her. Her practice gave Patrick improper access to too many students' grades on papers and quizzes. It also tended to create an unhealthy appearance of favoritism. Although it was not proven that a certain amount of special treatment for good behavior and effort would be inappropriate especially in the context of a GOALS class, the Respondent went overboard when it came to Patrick.) It was improper for the Respondent to engage in the close personal relationship that developed between her and Patrick during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year. It became harmful to the learning environment, it changed the relationship from a teacher-student relationship to a friend-friend relationship, and it tended to create an unhealthy appearance of favoritism. Encouraging Patrick to lie for the Respondent in order to protect her job (and Miller's reputation) exposed him to conditions harmful to his learning and mental and emotional health and safety. The Respondent exploited her relationship with Patrick for personal gain or advantage during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year in that she used him improperly as her personal assistant. Except for the incidents that were the subject matter of this case, the Petitioner has a fine record as a teacher. In fact, at the time she took her medical leave of absence, she was about to be interviewed as part of the School Board's Targeted Selection Process for recruiting and training qualified teachers for promotion to a managerial position. The Respondent's inappropriate conduct during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year resulted from the exercise of poor judgment in the degree to which she varied from the conduct expected of a teacher in regular education while teaching in the GOALS program. The Respondent's poor judgment may have resulted in part from the debilitating personal stress from which she was suffering and which, actually on the eve of her Targeted Selection interview, required her to take a medical leave of absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order suspending the Respondent for 45 days based on the charges that have been proven in this case. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1629 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that either graded test papers or that test grades were entered or that grades were entered in the Respondent's official grade book. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (She gave them A's in part for the work they did for her, rather than solely for scores earned on tests and quizzes administered to the other students.) Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that a "sexual relationship" with the Texan was discussed. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as not proven that she did not agree to meet until after talking to the student. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part as conclusion of law. Also, rejected as not proven that it is improper for a teacher to have a student grade another student's daily class assignments and homework assignments for immediate feedback. (This usually is done by exchanging papers in class.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. (The extensive use of Patrick as if he were the Respondent's personal assistant was improper.) Rejected as not proven as to Shannon. Accepted and incorporated as to Patrick. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (It was not proven that the Respondent allowed Patrick to forge her signature to hall passes.) Rejected as not proven in the context of the GOALS program. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven as to Shannon. Accepted and incorporated as to Patrick. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (For purposes of these rulings, consecutive numbers have been assigned to the unnumbered paragraphs of proposed findings of fact in the Respondent's proposed recommended order.) 1. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 2.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that the Respondent just told Patrick to "tell the truth." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Generally accepted but subordinate, some to facts contrary to those found. The documents in evidence reflect that the Respondent did give quizzes in her GOALS classes. And, while evaluators who observed her classrooms saw students grading class assignments, the evidence was not clear that they were aware of the extent of Patrick's role as the Respondent's personal assistant. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence. But the rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7.-8. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as to Patrick as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. The rest is rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Fourth sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. The rest is rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Suite 100 1408 North Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire 501 First Avenue North Suite 600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Marguerite Longoria Robinson, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 E. 7th Avenue, Suite 301 P. O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in Superintendent, Pinellas County Schools, letters to John Beiletti dated July 26, 1991 and October 29, 1991; and provisions of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 27, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, John J. Beiletti was employed as a social studies classroom teacher by the Pinellas County School Board and held Professional Teaching Certificate No. 121187 issued by the State of Florida, Board of Education. At the time the charges here involved arose, Petitioner was teaching World History at Northeast High School in St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent taught for six years in Hillsborough County prior to being employed at Dunedin Senior High School in 1965 (Exhibit 14). Respondent's testimony that he holds three master's degrees and has been a teacher for 33 years was not rebutted. Respondent's evaluations were generally satisfactory, and he was considered to be a good to excellent teacher prior to 1981 when various complaints and requests for transfers from his classes were received from students and parents. These complaints led to meetings, investigations and letters cautioning Respondent about his conduct in class. By letter dated October 25, 1982 (Exhibit 3), Francis M. Freeman, Principal at Dunedin High School, notified Respondent that numerous complaints about him had been received, namely: That you yell at, embarrass, frighten, and intimidate young people. That many illustrations you use in teaching are somewhat crude or earthy in nature. That the amount of work you require in certain areas is too technical for students at the 9th grade level. That when parental conferences are held that you requested that students write you letters or come to see the principal to indicate to him what a fine teacher you are. On November 5, 1982, Hugh B. Kriever, Director of Student Discipline, Pinellas County School System, conferred with Respondent to discuss the problems he was having in his classroom. This meeting was memorialized in Exhibit 4. On December 1, 1982, James Shipley, Area Superintendent, Pinellas County School System, reprimanded Respondent for unprofessional conduct in leaving an obscenity written by a student on the blackboard in his classroom for two days after becoming aware it was there. (Exhibit 5). Despite these efforts on the part of the school system, the complaints continued. Robert Wright succeeded Freeman as Principal, Dunedin High School, and on November 14, 1983, a conference was held with Wright, Ficarrota, Assistant Principal, and Respondent to discuss the complaints. By letter dated November 16, 1983 (Exhibit 10), Wright notified Respondent the following acts for which complaints were made must cease at once: Profanity. Intimidation; yelling and embarrassing students. Playing music, (tape, radio or guitar) Controversial material being taught. Inappropriate procedures for handling student detentions. By letter dated March 10, 1984 (Exhibit 11), Wright advised Respondent that he had noticed Respondent's student aide recording grades in Respondent's grade book and informed the student this was not permissible. The letter reminded Respondent that the practice is absolutely forbidden and enclosed a copy of Rule 6Gx52-8.06, Pinellas County Schools Policy Manual. These problems led to attempts to involuntarily transfer Respondent to another school in 1982 (or 1983), which was successfully rebuffed by Respondent. (Exhibit 13). On March 28, 1983, a Joint Stipulation was entered into between Respondent and Scott N. Rose, Superintendent, Pinellas County Schools (Exhibit 15), in which Respondent agreed: To take a 10 day personal leave without pay; In his remarks to students and in his behavior in the classroom Respondent would adhere to material appropriate to the district's accepted curriculum; To promptly exchange matters of concern or complaint; and Respondent will be reassigned to another school in the 1984-85 school year. On November 28, 1983, a conference was held with Nancy Zambito, Director of Personnel Services for Pinellas County Schools; Bob Husbands, Classroom Teachers Association representative; and Respondent. (Exhibit 13) At this conference, Zambito advised Respondent that profanity, yelling at and/or embarrassing students, and inappropriate detention practices are not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Respondent said he would "try" to refrain from profanity and "hoped" he wouldn't slip. For the 1984-85 school year, Respondent was transferred to Northeast High School where he remained until suspended in 1991. On March 12, 1985, Tom Zachary, Principal at Northeast High School, conferred with Respondent regarding the latter's teaching procedures. At this conference, memorialized in Exhibit 21, they discussed Respondent's classes and weekly routine, and Respondent was told these procedures needed to be improved; considered his teaching procedures which also needed to be improved; his textbook approach which also needed improvement; and his casual dress deemed to be inappropriate in the classroom. During the period mid-March to mid-April, 1991, Sheila Keller, Curriculum Supervisor, Pinellas County Schools, observed five classes taught by Respondent during that period. Her report to the Assistant Principal, Northeast High School, is contained in Exhibit 25. That report confirms the allegations that Respondent strays from the subject of his lecture, discusses his personal health, marital status and specific religious beliefs, subjects he had been repeatedly told to omit from his classroom lectures. During the 1990-91 school year, Principal Charlie Williams at Northeast High School received a letter from the mother of a pupil in Respondent's class complaining of Respondent's conduct in the classroom. This complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent's office and investigated by Steven Crosby, Director of Personnel Services, Pinellas County Schools. As a result of that investigation, Respondent was suspended without pay based upon the allegations contained in the charging letter as noted in the preliminary statement portion of this Recommended Order and advised of his right to an administrative hearing. At the hearing, 11 students who had Respondent as a teacher at Northeast High School in the 1990-91 school year testified and I so find, that during the times they were in his classes, Respondent: Frequently yelled at them, used words like damn, hell and shit during his lectures; made racially disparaging comments; intimidated and embarrassed students by demeaning them in a manner the whole class could observe; told the class that sometimes he would lie to them; made remarks about religion that some students found to be disparaging to their religious beliefs; and rambled from his lecture nearly every time he lectured with inappropriate stories about his personal life. Further, many of these students felt they were not receiving a proper education in Respondent's class, and a petition was circulated requesting Respondent be replaced as a teacher at Northeast High School. When the student who received a grade lower than she thought she deserved went to a counselor to complain, Respondent later called her up to his desk and called her little miss honor student. This embarrassed her, and she called her mother who subsequently telephoned Respondent to complain of this incident, and wrote the letter that initiated the investigation leading to these charges. During a lengthy conversation with Respondent, this parent testified that Respondent suggested she have coffee with him and further suggested she have dinner with him. Respondent denies that he invited her to dinner or coffee and testified she invited him to her home for dinner, and her husband invited him to go out on the husband's boat--both of which Respondent declined. The testimony of the parent is deemed to be the more credible. Respondent called two witnesses who were in Respondent's class at Dunedin High School in 1969 and 1972-73. These witnesses found Respondent to be an excellent teacher while they were in his class. Two witnesses called by Respondent in his classes during the 1990-91 school year testified that Respondent used curse words and intimidated students when he yelled at them. In his testimony, Respondent denied intimidating students, but acknowledged that he frequently yelled at them to get their attention and improve discipline in the class, that he sometimes used words like damn and hell and could have used the word shit. Respondent denies he favors any religion, but prefers meditation and considers many religions too ceremonial. Respondent acknowledged that he told his pupils that history is not exact, but is slanted by the opinions of the writer and therefore is frequently untrue. In this context, he intimated to, if not directly told, the class that some of the history taught by him was lies. Respondent further acknowledged that he had one student enter grades in his grade book and presented other evidence that this practice was not uncommon at Northeast High School, although prohibited by the school system policy manual. With respect to the allegation in DOAH Case No. 91-7307, the evidence is unrebutted that on October 2, 1991, Respondent, from his home in Tampa, made a long distance call to the school administration building to inquire about the status of his health insurance. A new telephone system had recently been installed and considerable difficulty arose in routing Respondent's call to the correct person, as Respondent did not have the extension number of the person he needed to talk with. After several frustrating attempts, Respondent was accidently transferred to voice mail with a recorded message to leave his message and someone would get back to him. Respondent's temper flared, and he shouted obscenities into the voice mail recorded and threw the telephone upon the bed adjacent to where he was calling. A tape of these obscenities was admitted as Exhibit 32.
Recommendation Considering all of these factors, it is recommended that John J. Beiletti be dismissed from his position as a continuing contract teacher with the Pinellas County school system and that Teaching Certificate No. 121187 issued to John J. Beiletti be revoked. ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Proposed findings submitted by the School Board are accepted, except as noted below. Those proposed findings not excepted to or included in H.O. recommended order were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Rejected as hearsay unsupported by admissible evidence. Rejected as irrelevant since Beiletti was not charged with a violation involving lesson plans. Proposed findings submitted by Commissioner of Education are accepted, except as noted below. Those proposed findings not excepted to or included in the H.O. findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The papers graded by the student aide involved only true or false or selection from several options as correct and did not affect the teacher's assessment of the student's work. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted, except as noted below. Those proposed findings not excepted to or included below were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected. While the language of the discipline imposed does not say suspension without pay, the result is the same. 11. Accepted. However, Ms. Zambito changed jobs in the school system after 1984. 12,13,14. Rejected. 17,18. Rejected as irrelevant. 37. Accepted. However, the tenor of Zambito's testimony was that she wasn't learning because Respondent was absent so much, and when he returned he criticized the class for not learning the subject matter that should have been covered during the period Respondent was absent. 41. Accepted as testimony of one student. 43-54. Rejected as self serving testimony of Beiletti. 57-58. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 2942 Largo, FL 34649-2942 Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 352 Florida Education Center Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Robert J. McCormack, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, FL 33675-0638 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Dr. Raymond O. Shelton, Superintendent Hillsborough County School Board Post Office Box 3408 Tampa, FL 33601-3408
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred to Jan Mann Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Antwan Clark (Antwan), attended the sixth and seventh grades at Carol City Middle School during the academic years 1991-1992, and 1992-1993, respectively. On October 10, 1991, Antwan was suspended outdoors for three days for fighting. On October 22, 1991, Antwan was caught running in the school hallways by the assistant principal Don DeLucas. When Antwan was told to stop, he ignored the verbal request. Antwan was given a detention for his behavior. On November 5, 1991, Antwan was referred by his sixth period teacher to Assistant Principal DeLucas for being tardy to class, refusing to sign for detention, and walking out of class without a pass. Antwan was issued a reprimand/warning for his behavior and a conference was held with school administrators and his parents. After school was dismissed on March 10, 1992, the school principal Mary Henry walked toward the Carol City Elementary School while watching the students leave the middle school grounds. Antwan, across the street in a gas station parking lot, threw rocks across the street in the direction of Ms. Henry. Police Officer Christopher Burgain observed Antwan tossing the rocks. When Antwan saw the police officer, he moved to another group of students in the parking lot. Officer Burgain got Antwan and took him to Ms. Henry who told him to take Antwan back to the school. Ms. Henry called Antwan's parents. Antwan was suspended outdoors for two days for this incident. On March 16, 1992, Antwan's teacher, Ms. Viamonte, referred him to Assistant Principal DeLucas for getting out of his seat, coming to class unprepared, responding to the teacher when she asked for his daily progress report that she "was wasting his time" and threatening to tear up the daily progress report. Antwan was given a reprimand/warning and a conference was held with his parents. On April 16, 1992, Antwan cut his sixth period and was given a three- day indoor suspension. Another conference was held with his parents. On May 11, 1992, Antwan was caught gambling at a nearby senior high school. The assistant principal for the senior high school returned Antwan to Ms. Henry at the middle school. Antwan was suspended outdoors for three days. On July 22, 1992, Antwan was referred to Assistant Principal John Strachan for disciplinary action for telling a teacher that he didn't have to do what the teacher told him to do. Antwan was suspended outdoors for one day. During the 1992-1993 school year, Antwan was placed in the Student At Risk Program (SARP), which is a program designed for students who are at risk of dropping out of school. Students participating in SARP are given more attention than the students in the mainstream population. A counselor is assigned to the SARP program. On September 21, 1992, Ms. McGraw, Antwan's fifth period teacher referred Antwan to Assistant Principal Strachan for refusing to do his work, yelling at her about a pass to the office after she told him he could not have a pass, and refusing to give her a working telephone number for his parents so that she could call them. Antwan was given an indoor suspension until school administrators could meet with his parents. Antwan failed to stay in his class area during physical education class. His teacher, Janet Evans, would have to stop her class and call Antwan back into the class area. On September 24, 1992, Antwan left class without permission, and Ms. Evans found him and some other students outside the girls' locker room gambling by flipping coins. For these actions he was given a one- day indoor suspension. On October 29, 1992, Antwan was referred to Assistant Principal Strachan for excessive tardiness to school. Antwan refused direction by Mr. Strachan and was verbal and disruptive about being given a suspension. Antwan's mother was called to come and pick up him. Antwan was given a three-day outdoor suspension. On November 20, 1992, Teacher Golditch referred Antwan to the principal for shouting across the room to the extent that the teacher had to stop the class lesson and change what the class was doing. When Antwan got to the principal's office he got out of his seat, made noises, and went to the staff's counter when he was not supposed to do so. Antwan was given a one-day outdoor suspension for these actions. On January 6, 1993, Antwan and four other students were horseplaying in the cafeteria, resulting in the breaking of a window. He received a three- day indoor suspension for this behavior. On February 11, 1993, Antwan was walking around in Ms. Schrager's class and would not take his seat even though Ms. Schrager repeatedly asked him to do so. Antwan was distracting other students in the class, and Ms. Schrager had to stop the class to correct Antwan. Ms. Schrager referred the matter to Assistant Principal Strachan. A security officer was required to remove Antwan from the classroom. When asked by Mr. Strachan why he would not take his seat when asked by Ms. Schrager, Antwan responded that he wanted to sit where he wanted to sit. For this incident, Antwan received a five-day indoor suspension. Cheryl Johnson, Antwan's math teacher, had witnessed incidents in Ms. Schrager's class when Antwan would get out of his seat, walk around the classroom, and talk to other students, thereby disrupting Ms. Schrager's class. Ms. Johnson also had problems with Antwan in her classroom. Antwan would bring his drumsticks to class and tap on his desk. He was tardy to class, failed to do his homework assignments and participated very little in class. On March 8, 1993, Antwan and other students were throwing books at each other in Ms. Schrager's classroom during class. Ms. Schrager referred the incident to Mr. Strachan, who talked with Antwan. Antwan told Mr. Strachan that a student had hit him so he threw several books in retaliation. Other students were also written up for this incident by Ms. Schrager. Antwan received a five- day outdoor suspension for this episode. On March 23, 1993, Ms. Kramer, Antwan's language arts teacher, referred him to Mr. Strachan for disciplinary action for the following behavior: walking around the classroom, talking to other students, refusing to take his seat when asked to do so by his teacher, telling his teacher he didn't have to do what she was telling him to do, and rolling his eyes while continuing to move around. He received a detention. On April 21, 1993, Ms. Schrager observed Antwan showing his friend an object which resembled the outline of a gun. She asked Antwan to come talk to her. He began to walk toward her and then walked to the other side of the room. She called a security guard to come into the classroom but they were unable to find the object. Antwan was given a ten-day outdoor suspension which was reduced to a six-day suspension after school administrators talked with Antwan's parents. On May 7, 1993, Antwan was in the hallway and was fifteen minutes late for class. Mr. Strachan saw him and told Antwan to come to him. Antwan ran away from Mr. Strachan. When Mr. Strachan caught up with him, Antwan wanted to know what he had done wrong. Antwan received two detentions for the incident. On May 13, 1993, Antwan chased a female student into Ms. Arlene Shapiro's classroom. He grabbed the front of the girl's blouse trying to get a beeper which she had underneath her blouse. The girl called for help. Antwan was not Ms. Shapiro's student and was not supposed to be in her classroom. Ms. Shapiro told Antwan to let the girl go and he replied, "No. Make me." She put her hand on his back to guide him out of the classroom, and he told her not to touch him or he would hit her. She took her hand away. He punched her on her arm and then ran down the hall. Ms. Shapiro referred the matter to Assistant Principal DeLucas. Mr. DeLucas questioned Antwan about the incident and Antwan admitted hitting the teacher. Antwan received a ten-day outdoor suspension. Antwan was not doing well academically at Carol City Middle School. His report card for the school year ending June, 1993, showed final grades of four "F's" and three "D's." While at Carol City Middle School, Antwan received numerous group and individual counseling sessions with guidance counselors. Additionally, Ms. Henry, the principal, took Antwan "under her wing" and tried to counsel him. School administrators met with Antwan and his parents to discuss the problems that Antwan was having at school. However, these efforts to correct Antwan's disruptive behavior were unsuccessful. Additionally, as Antwan's disruptive behavior continued to escalate, resulting in more frequent conferences with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Clark's attitude seemed to change from conciliatory to hostile and defensive. Antwan was reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School during the summer of 1993. The classes are smaller than the traditional school class. There are counselors and a full-time psychologist on staff. The focus at Jan Mann is to try build self-esteem, teach conflict resolution, develop social skills, and correct past behavior problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered affirming the assignment of Antwan J. Clark to the Jan Mann Opportunity School. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5483 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 3: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The first part of the third sentence stating that Mr. Strachan personally removed Antwan from the classroom from five to ten times is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of the sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: The first three sentences and the first half of the fourth sentence are rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. The second half of the fourth sentence and the last two sentences are accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Ms. Schrager saw an object which resembled a cap gun. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The first part of the third sentence is accepted in substance. The second part of the third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The last sentence is accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 12: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument except the fact that Antwan threw rocks at Ms. Henry is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: The first three sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 17-19: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 20: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 21: The two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance except to the extent that gambling occurred on only one occasion. Paragraph 6: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 9: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Respondent's Exhibit 1 shows numerous counseling sessions between Antwan and his counselor and at least one conference between Antwan's parents and a counselor. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 12-14: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 15: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The second and third sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. I find that the parents' testimony is not credible. Paragraph 16: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 17-19: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 21: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is accepted in substance as it relates to early conferences with the parents and school officials. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne G. Telasco, Esquire First Nationwide Building 633 NE 167th Street, Suite 304 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 3211 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33134 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, #403 Miami, Florida 33312-1308 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
