The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Best and Brightest Scholarship as established and defined by section 1012.731(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact In 2015, the Legislature enacted, by way of a line item in the annual appropriations bill, the Best and Brightest Program to award cash scholarships to Florida teachers who have been evaluated as “highly effective” by their school districts and who scored at or above the 80th percentile (top 20%) on the SAT or ACT when they took the test. Ch. 2015-232, § 2, line item 99A, Laws of Fla.1/ In 2016, the Legislature enacted a stand-alone statute for the Best and Brightest Program, codifying the appropriations bill language and providing that the program is to be administered by the Department of Education (the “Department”). Ch. 2016-62, § 25, Laws of Fla., codified at § 1012.731, Fla. Stat. (2016). Rather than enacting a statutory scholarship amount, subsection (5) of the 2016 version of section 1012.731 provided that the scholarships would be awarded to every eligible classroom teacher “in the amount provided in the General Appropriations Act.”2/ The 2016 statute also explained that the Best and Brightest Program was intended to provide “categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic achievement.” § 1012.731(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 1012.01(2) defines “instructional personnel,” including “classroom teachers,” as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL.— “Instructional personnel” means any K-12 staff member whose function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K-12 personnel whose functions provide direct support in the learning process of students. Included in the classification of instructional personnel are the following K-12 personnel: Classroom teachers.--Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers. Student personnel services.--Student personnel services include staff members responsible for: advising students with regard to their abilities and aptitudes, educational and occupational opportunities, and personal and social adjustments; providing placement services; performing educational evaluations; and similar functions. Included in this classification are certified school counselors, social workers, career specialists, and school psychologists. Librarians/media specialists.-- Librarians/media specialists are staff members responsible for providing school library media services. These employees are responsible for evaluating, selecting, organizing, and managing media and technology resources, equipment, and related systems; facilitating access to information resources beyond the school; working with teachers to make resources available in the instructional programs; assisting teachers and students in media productions; and instructing students in the location and use of information resources. Other instructional staff.--Other instructional staff are staff members who are part of the instructional staff but are not classified in one of the categories specified in paragraphs (a)-(c). Included in this classification are primary specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, adjunct educators certified pursuant to s. 1012.57, and similar positions. Education paraprofessionals.--Education paraprofessionals are individuals who are under the direct supervision of an instructional staff member, aiding the instructional process. Included in this classification are classroom paraprofessionals in regular instruction, exceptional education paraprofessionals, career education paraprofessionals, adult education paraprofessionals, library paraprofessionals, physical education and playground paraprofessionals, and other school-level paraprofessionals. In 2017, the Legislature amended section 1012.731(3) to establish that the scholarship award would be $6,000 for those classroom teachers rated “highly effective” who also had the requisite SAT or ACT scores: (3)(a) To be eligible for a scholarship in the amount of $6,000, a classroom teacher must: 1. Have achieved a composite score at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based on the National Percentile Ranks in effect when the classroom teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded, unless the classroom teacher is newly hired by the district school board and has not been evaluated pursuant to s.1012.34. * * * In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible classroom teacher must submit to the school district, no later than November 1, an official record of his or her qualifying assessment score and, beginning with the 2020-2021 school year, an official transcript demonstrating that he or she graduated cum laude or higher with a baccalaureate degree, if applicable. Once a classroom teacher is deemed eligible by the school district, the teacher shall remain eligible as long as he or she remains employed by the school district as a classroom teacher at the time of the award and receives an annual performance evaluation rating of highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 or is evaluated as highly effective based on a commissioner- approved student learning growth formula pursuant to s. 1012.34(8) for the 2019-2020 school year or thereafter. Ch. 2017-116, § 46, Laws of Fla. The 2017 amendment to section 1012.731 also added a new subsection (3)(c), providing that lesser amounts could be awarded to teachers rated “highly effective” or “effective,” even if they could not demonstrate scores at or above the 80th percentile on the SAT or ACT: Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, for the 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, and 2019-2020 school years, any classroom teacher who: Was evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded shall receive a scholarship of $1,200, including a classroom teacher who received an award pursuant to paragraph (a). Was evaluated as effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded a scholarship of up to $800. If the number of eligible classroom teachers under this subparagraph exceeds the total allocation, the department shall prorate the per-teacher scholarship amount. This paragraph expires July 1, 2020. Id. By December 1 of each year, each school district must submit to the Department the number of eligible classroom teachers who qualify for the scholarship, as well as identifying information regarding the schools to which the eligible classroom teachers are assigned. § 1012.731(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. For the 2017-2018 school year, the December 1, 2017, submission deadline was extended to January 2, 2018, due to a hurricane. The School Board’s deadline for teachers to apply for the scholarship was accordingly extended from November 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. By February 1 of each year, the Department is required to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible classroom teacher to receive a scholarship. § 1012.731(5), Fla. Stat. By April 1, each school district is required to award the scholarship to each eligible classroom teacher. § 1012.731(6), Fla. Stat. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1012.731 to provide that a school district employee who is no longer a classroom teacher may receive the $6,000 award if the employee was a classroom teacher in the prior school year, was rated highly effective, and met the requirements of this section as a classroom teacher. § 1012.731(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature did not add a similar provision stating that former classroom teachers who are still school district employees remain eligible for the $1,200 and $800 awards. § 1012.731(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature funds the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board had no role in creating the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board is required to determine the eligibility of classroom teachers who qualify for the Best and Brightest Program pursuant to the requirements of the statute. Petitioners in this case claim entitlement only to the $1,200 award established by the 2017 version of the statute. Brenda Troutman, director of Instructional Personnel, is the School Board employee in charge of the Best and Brightest Program application and submission process. Ms. Troutman has worked for the School Board for 17 years. She has been a junior high classroom teacher and an assistant principal and vice principal at the high school level. Though no longer teaching in the classroom, Ms. Troutman retains her certifications in math grades 5-9, exceptional student education (“ESE”), educational leadership, and school principal. When working as a high school administrator, Ms. Troutman was the master scheduler for her school, meaning that she built the schedule for every teacher at the school. This task required that she become very familiar with the School Board’s course code directory. Ms. Troutman also had to understand the certification system in order to hire and assign teachers. If a teacher asked to teach a certain course, Ms. Troutman had to know both the course requirements and the teacher’s certifications to determine whether the teacher was eligible to teach the course. As part of her current position in the School Board’s human resources department, Ms. Troutman is required to know the School Board’s various job titles and descriptions. She is responsible for replacing obsolete job descriptions and posting current job descriptions on the School Board’s website. Ms. Troutman testified as to how she manages the application and submission process of the Best and Brightest Program. She starts by making herself familiar with any changes the Legislature may have made to the program. She then issues a notice to teachers about the program and the current eligibility requirements. For the 2017-2018 Best and Brightest Program, Ms. Troutman prepared a draft email that Superintendent Addison Davis reviewed and sent to all of the school district’s teachers and administrators on September 28, 2017. The email explained that to be eligible for the $6,000, $1,200 or $800 scholarship, an applicant must meet the definition of classroom teacher as set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Troutman developed the School Board’s application for the Best and Brightest Program, based upon her understanding of the statutory requirements. All completed applications for the Best and Brightest Program come into Ms. Troutman’s office. Ms. Troutman testified that she received approximately 2,000 applications for the 2017-2018 award. Ms. Troutman, with the aid of her assistant, reviews and verifies the information on the applications. If Ms. Troutman has any questions about an application, she seeks the opinion of her direct supervisor David Broskie, the director of Human Resources. In some cases, they also have discussions with Superintendent Davis and School Board Attorney David D’Agata. The School Board employs two major data programs. FOCUS is the program/database that holds all student information, including attendance, grades, disciplinary actions, test information, and demographics. TERMS is the program/database that houses all employee information. When verifying information on the Best and Brightest Program applications, Ms. Troutman uses both FOCUS and TERMS, and on occasion conducts additional investigation. The School Board’s application asks for the teacher’s assignment. Because the application was titled “2017-2018 Clay County Application: Florida Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship,” Ms. Troutman believed that the teachers were required to provide their 2017-2018 teacher assignments. As will be discussed in more detail below, the year of the teacher assignment was a major point of disagreement between Petitioners and the School Board. The application provided a checkmark system for the teacher to indicate which scholarship was being sought. The $1,200 scholarship line provided as follows: I am applying for the $1,200.00 highly effective scholarship. I have attached a copy of my 2016-2017 highly effective final evaluation (with student performance measures). The application’s language led Petitioners to believe that the 2017-2018 scholarship awards would be based on their teacher assignments and evaluations for 2016-2017. Ms. Troutman explained that this belief was incorrect. Eligibility for the 2017-2018 scholarship was based on a teacher’s assignment for the 2017-2018 school year. The plain language of the statute requires that one must be a “classroom teacher” in order to be eligible for the scholarship; having been a classroom teacher in a previous year does not suffice. Ms. Troutman stated that she verified with Mr. Broskie, Mr. Davis, and Mr. D’Agata that the School Board should base the award on the teacher’s 2017-2018 assignment. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the statutory language requires only an evaluation of “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. The statute is silent as to whether a teacher applying for the $1,200 scholarship must be teaching in a classroom situation during the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioners argue that the School Board is reading a requirement into the statute that is not evident from the plain language. Ms. Troutman further explained that the applications for the 2017-2018 scholarships were to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, as required by section 1012.731(3)(a)1. and (3)(c), the application requested the evaluation for “the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded.” Ms. Troutman testified that it is sometimes obvious from the teaching assignment that the teacher qualifies as a “classroom teacher.” If an application states that the assignment is “chemistry teacher” or “algebra teacher” or “fifth grade classroom teacher,” it is clear that the applicant meets the definition. Aside from verifying the assignment in the TERMS database, Ms. Troutman takes no further action. However, some applications require additional research before Ms. Troutman can conclude that the applicant qualifies as a classroom teacher. For example, Petitioner Abbie Andrews identified her assignment on her application as “classroom teacher.” Ms. Troutman went to TERMS and saw that Ms. Andrews was designated as an “ESE Support Facilitator” for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Troutman testified that ESE Support Facilitators are sometimes assigned to teach classes and therefore could be classified as “classroom teachers” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman examined both the master schedule and the teacher’s personal account in FOCUS to determine whether Ms. Andrews was assigned to teach any courses. Ms. Andrews had no teaching assignments for 2017-2018 in FOCUS. Ms. Andrews and fellow Petitioners Cherry Deaton, Donna Foster, and Danielle Perricelli held the position of ESE Support Facilitator during the 2017-2018 school year. The School Board concluded that these Petitioners did not qualify for the $1,200 scholarship because their schedules did not assign them the professional activity of instructing students in courses in a classroom situation, as required by the statute. It was undisputed that these Petitioners had been rated “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. It was also undisputed that Ms. Andrews, Ms. Deaton, and Ms. Foster met the statutory definition of a classroom teacher for the 2016-2017 school year. The School Board’s general job description for an ESE Support Facilitator provides as follows: The teacher is responsible directly to the Principal. He/she provides for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of assigned students on an as needed basis. He/she supports both general education and ESE teachers. He/she serves in a staff relationship with other teachers and supports and promotes ESE inclusion activities. (Emphasis added). The School Board contrasts this job description with that of “Classroom Teacher,” which provides: “The teacher is responsible directly to the principal for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of students.” The classroom teacher is fully responsible for the “instruction, supervision, and evaluation” of the students in her classroom, whereas the ESE Support Facilitator performs those activities only “as needed.” The School Board also points out that, unlike a classroom teacher, an ESE Support Facilitator is not required to be certified in-field for the position. The ESE Support Facilitator is not the teacher of record for any particular course. Their schedule is fluid. The ESE Support Facilitator comes and goes as needed (“pushes in,” to use the teaching vernacular) in the classroom, and is expected to be wherever the ESE student assigned to them needs their services. Sometimes they push into the classroom and sometimes they pull students out of the class to work on a specific concept or skill. An ESE Support Facilitator is assigned “contact students” for whom individualized educational plans (“IEPs”) are prepared. The classroom teacher of record is responsible for giving the student course credit or a grade and is responsible for recording attendance in FOCUS. One-third of the classroom teacher’s evaluation is tied to student performance. Only the classroom teacher has default access to FOCUS in order to enter attendance and grade information for the students in the class. An ESE Support Facilitator must seek and be granted access to student’s FOCUS information. An ESE Support Facilitator is expected to meet with each contact student at least once a month; in practice, these meetings tend to occur more frequently. The ESE Support Facilitator goes over accommodations the student needs and assignments the student did not understand. The facilitator reteaches the course material if need be and stays in touch with the student’s teachers and parents, making sure all stakeholders in the student’s success are on the same page. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that all of the students served by the ESE Support Facilitators in this case attended classes in regular classrooms, not in separate ESE classes. In such “inclusion” classes, the ESE Support Facilitator’s role is to push in and assist contact students in the regular classroom, ensuring that their IEP requirements are met and that the students are progressing satisfactorily through the course material. Based on these definitional and operative distinctions, Ms. Troutman considered ESE Support Facilitators to be “other instructional staff” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(d), rather than “classroom teachers” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Andrews was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Andrews met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Andrews was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, not assigned to teach any courses. In FOCUS, she was assigned as the “contact teacher” for approximately 60 students, meaning that she was primarily responsible for writing their IEPs and ensuring that they made adequate progress in their classes. She met with all of her contact students on an as needed basis, at least once per month but often as much as twice per week. However, Ms. Andrews was not listed in FOCUS as the teacher of record for any class. Even though she routinely pushed into classes to support her assigned ESE students, Ms. Andrews was not the primary teacher of record. She was there to assist her contact students with whatever they needed to learn the course, but the course was not assigned to her to teach. Ms. Andrews did not have a traditional classroom. She was not the teacher of record in any course for which students received academic credit, and she did not assign grades to students for the material she was teaching. Ms. Andrews prepared IEPs that were individualized to particular contact students. She did not prepare daily lesson plans in the manner of a classroom teacher. Ms. Andrews described her job as an ESE Support Facilitator as follows: My job is to teach, mentor, challenge students to make them -- make them ready for graduation, become productive members of society. I believe that’s the same thing a classroom teacher does. I am using the Florida standards to prepare lessons for remediation if a student needs it. I am constantly having conversations with not just students, but their parents, keeping them on track or making sure their students are on track because ultimately, a parent wants that student to graduate on time as well. I believe that the questions that are asked of me as a support facilitator are the same questions that parents would ask of a classroom teacher because they are very concerned. I am not just answering questions based on one classroom. I'm answering questions based on six classes. I'm responsible for that student being successful in six classes. The IEPs that I write, they're legally binding. I am involved in the academics, behavior, discipline. I deal with discipline problems. All of these things are the same things that a classroom teacher would deal with. I do not have a schedule in Focus; however, when a need arises, I'm there, I'm in a classroom, I'm helping, and I'm doing what's needed to be done for the kids to be successful. Ms. Deaton was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Deaton met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Deaton was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, with approximately 60 contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. She was not assigned to teach any courses. If she pushed into a class to support her assigned ESE students, she was not the primary teacher of record. She was not designated as a co-teacher,3/ but she would assist teaching classes on an as-needed basis if she was not busy testing students or preparing IEPs. For those classes, she was provided access to view grades in FOCUS, but she did not have access to give grades. She would meet students as needed in her office, in another teacher's classroom, or in the computer lab. She did not develop lesson plans on her own, but provided suggestions and advice on lesson plans to the primary teacher. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Deaton did not have a classroom or teach a classroom full of students. She had no schedule assigned to her in FOCUS, but had contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. Ms. Foster was employed as an English/language arts and ESE Inclusion Teacher during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught four classes as ESE inclusion teacher. The remaining two periods were devoted to her position as ESE department head. Ms. Foster had a schedule in FOCUS. She had her own classroom and students, prepared daily lesson plans, and assigned grades. Students in her classes received academic credit. Ms. Foster was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Foster met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. Ms. Foster was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator and ESE department head during the 2017-2018 school year. She retired at the end of the school year, effective June 7, 2018. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Foster did not have a set schedule. Ms. Foster’s assigned ESE students did not receive academic credit for the services she provided, but her assistance was integral in helping them pass their courses. Ms. Foster assisted with an American history class during the 2017-2018 school year, but was not assigned as the primary teacher in FOCUS. Ms. Foster testified that she did not believe she had ever been identified as a co-teacher in FOCUS, though she thought she should have been. Ms. Foster testified that she had IEPs for the American history class that listed both the class setting and the service delivery method as “co-teach.” She explained that because the class had both general education and ESE students, the teacher had to be certified in both the subject matter and ESE. Because the primary teacher was certified only in the subject matter, it was necessary for Ms. Foster to co-teach the class. Ms. Foster testified that she split lesson plan preparation with the primary teacher. Ms. Foster believed she was not listed in FOCUS as the co-teacher because the school administration never bothered to remove the name of Kristin Heard, the ESE teacher originally assigned to the class, who was moved to a science class early in the year. Ms. Foster pursued the matter with the assistant principals at Lakeside Junior High, but nothing came of it. Mallory McConnell, the principal at Lakeside Junior High School during the 2017-2018 school year, confirmed that Ms. Foster was not listed as a co-teacher on the master schedule. Ms. McConnell testified that in 2017-2018 there were no “true co-teacher” situations, by which she meant two teachers who equally shared responsibility for the instruction and grading of every student in the class. Ms. McConnell was aware of situations in which a student’s IEP mandates co-teaching in a class, but she testified that she was unaware of any student at Lakeside Junior High School in 2017-2018 whose IEP required a co-teacher. Ms. McConnell conducted infrequent walkthrough observations of the American history class. She testified that she saw Ms. Foster providing support services to the ESE students but never saw Ms. Foster teaching at the front of the class. Ms. McConnell stated that she would not have expected to see Ms. Foster teaching the class or creating lesson plans for the class as a whole because those tasks were not her job responsibility. Ms. McConnell was in no position to state whether Ms. Foster did, in fact, prepare lesson plans and teach the class. Ms. McConnell was able to state that for at least one month during the school year, Ms. Foster administered tests to her ESE students, meaning that she could not have been co- teaching the American history class. Ms. Foster did not tell Ms. Troutman that she had assisted teaching the American history class during the 2017- 2018 school year, nor did she include such information on her application for the Best and Brightest Program, because she believed the award was based upon her position in 2016-2017 and because she believed the school administration’s failure to include her as teacher of record in FOCUS was an “in-house” issue. Ms. Perricelli was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator, ESE department head, and MTSS intervention team facilitator at Orange Park Junior High School. “MTSS” is an acronym for Multi-Tiered System of Support, a framework for providing support to students who are struggling academically or have an identified need in a specific area such as speech, language, or behavior. MTSS interventions may be used for regular education or ESE students. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not the teacher assigned by FOCUS for any class in 2016-2017. In addition to her regular ESE duties, Ms. Perricelli taught “grade recovery” to two students in language arts, science, and math. Grade recovery is a class offered to students who have failed a course and lack the credits to move on to the next grade level. Ms. Perricelli designed lesson plans and curriculum assessments for each subject, graded papers and tests, and reported the students’ grades to the school. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not given the authority to enter the grade recovery students’ grades into FOCUS in 2016-2017. She requested a course code but was never provided one. Ms. Perricelli taught grade recovery for two periods, one for each student. For the other four periods of the school day, Ms. Perricelli would push into classrooms and work with ESE students, usually in small groups with students who needed remediation. She had around 40 contact students and developed IEPs for each of them. Most of her contact students were in the classrooms that she was going into, so she would see them throughout the week. She would meet with her other contact students about once a week. Ms. Perricelli would work with the assigned teacher to modify the course material to meet the needs of the ESE students. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated as “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year, based on standard classroom teacher criteria. She was observed working with her grade recovery students and in the classrooms in which she pushed in. Ms. Perricelli testified that her assignments were the same for the 2017-2018 school year. She taught one student in a grade recovery course. Due to her persistence, Ms. Perricelli was able to get a course code from Ms. Troutman for the grade recovery course in 2017-2018. The grade recovery course was named “Unique Skills.” In 2017-2018, Ms. Perricelli was assigned around 70 contact students for whom she prepared IEPs. As department head, Ms. Perricelli oversaw 22 ESE instructors. She was the only ESE Support Facilitator at the school. Janice Tucker was vice principal at Orange Park Junior High School in 2017-2018. She testified that early in the school year, the assigned teacher for seventh grade math left for another county. A long-term substitute, Lashonda Campbell, took over as teacher of record. Ms. Perricelli testified that she developed some of the curriculum in Ms. Campbell’s math classes, which included ESE and non-ESE students. She stated that she taught the class alone once a week when Ms. Campbell started, then tapered off into pulling out small groups of ESE students who needed remediation. She worked with four periods of seventh grade math classes that year. Ms. Perricelli testified that she gave grades to students in those courses and gave them to Ms. Campbell for entry into FOCUS. Ms. Tucker testified that Ms. Perricelli was not a co- teacher for the math class. Ms. Campbell was the teacher of record. Ms. Tucker testified that when she observed the math class, she saw Ms. Perricelli working with small groups in the back of the class or at a table in the hallway, and Ms. Campbell at the front teaching the class. Ms. Tucker never saw Ms. Perricelli at the front of the class teaching. Ms. Tucker conceded that she had no knowledge whether Ms. Perricelli was involved in creating lesson plans or assigning grades for the math class. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated by Ms. Tucker for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Tucker observed Ms. Perricelli in the seventh grade math class and in the Unique Skills class. Ms. Perricelli was again rated “highly effective.” Ms. Perricelli testified that she did not mention teaching the math class on her scholarship application. She stated that she did not tell Ms. Troutman about the math class because at the time, the school was still attempting to get a full-time teacher for the class. Ms. Troutman obviously knew about the “Unique Skills” class, having issued the course code to Ms. Perricelli. Ms. Troutman testified that she consulted with Mr. Broskie and Mr. D’Agata as to whether having one assigned class in FOCUS should qualify Ms. Perricelli for the scholarship. They concluded that teaching one class with one student was insufficient to qualify as a “classroom teacher” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman testified that this conclusion was consistent with the School Board’s historic practice of considering two or more classes as the “cutoff” for a classroom teacher. Ms. Troutman believed that if an ESE Support Facilitator taught two classes, then she would qualify as a “classroom teacher.” Petitioner Easter Brown taught a fourth grade classroom at Grove Park Elementary School during the 2016-2017 school year and was rated “highly effective.” It is not disputed that Ms. Brown met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Brown was a full-time SPRINT specialist. “SPRINT” stands for Supervisor of Pre-Interns and New Teachers. SPRINT specialist is a support position for teacher trainees and new teachers, operating under an agreement between the School Board and the University of North Florida (“UNF”), each of which pays half of the SPRINT specialist’s salary. Ms. Brown taught field classes at UNF and conducted workshops for clinical educator training and professional development. Ms. Brown kept Grove Park Elementary as her home base and shared a classroom there with two other teachers. She taught UNF students in classes at the university and worked with new teachers at the school. She estimated that she spent half her time at UNF and half at Grove Park Elementary. Ms. Brown had no K-12 courses or K-12 students assigned to her in 2017-2018. She had no courses assigned to her in FOCUS. She gave grades to only UNF students. Ms. Brown did not create traditional lesson plans but did assist new teachers in writing lesson plans. Ms. Brown testified that she did some teaching in a regular classroom for purposes of modeling teaching techniques for her student teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clay County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Petitioners Abbie Andrews, Cherry Deaton, and Donna Foster were not eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were not classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year; and Finding that Petitioners Easter Brown and Danielle Perricelli were eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year, and directing staff to take all practicable measures to secure the scholarship monies for Ms. Brown and Ms. Perricelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent from employment with the Brevard County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Brevard County, Florida. This includes the power to discipline employees, such as teachers. § 4, Article IX, Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.42(5), 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.33, Fla. Stat.1 Respondent is a classroom teacher, and as such, the terms and conditions of her employment are governed by the collective agreement between the School Board and The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098. Respondent has a Bachelor’s degree in exceptional education. On or about November 9, 2006, Respondent, pursuant to an annual contract, was hired by the School Board to provide services as a classroom teacher. Beginning in the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent continued her employment with the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. During all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent taught at Hoover Middle School, which is under the jurisdiction of the School Board. At the commencement of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent taught exceptional education (ESE) students in a self-contained, supported-level class. At approximately the midway point of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent began teaching a resource math class which was comprised entirely of ESE students. Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, and continuing through the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent taught one resource math class for a single class-period of the day, and she co-taught, or “pushed-in,” for the other five instructional class periods. In both settings, Respondent taught math to ESE students. By correspondence dated March 26, 2019, Superintendent Mullins advised Respondent of the following: Pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.34, you are being recommended for termination of your Professional Services Contract due to unsatisfactory 1 All subsequent references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2018 codification, unless otherwise indicated. Performance …. The actions leading to this recommendation are as follows: On October 29, 2018, you were provided a 90-day notice advising of performance-related concerns based upon three years of unsatisfactory annual evaluations. Several performance review meetings were held with you, your union representative, and your school Principal to discuss your progress. A review of your past evaluations indicates several attempts at corrective activities through the use of District Peer Mentors and Resource Teachers. After the completion of the 90-day plan, adequate progress was not obtained and is grounds to sever the Professional Services Contract. The School Board uses an “Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System” (IPPAS) as a guide when evaluating a teacher’s performance. According to the IPPAS manual, classroom teachers are evaluated on a rubric which consists of five dimensions. The first dimension focuses on “instructional design and lesson planning.” The second dimension focuses on the “learning environment” created and fostered by the teacher. The third dimension focuses on “instructional delivery and facilitation.” The fourth dimension focuses on “assessment,” and the fifth dimension focuses on a teacher’s “professional responsibility and ethical conduct.” IPPAS is approved annually by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), and the School Board meets regularly with The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098, to address any issues concerning the evaluation process. Teachers and evaluators receive yearly training, which covers the various components of the evaluation process. Pursuant to IPPAS, and related statutory provisions, classroom teachers are evaluated annually. The overall score given to a teacher on the annual evaluation is determined by how a teacher scores in the areas of “Professional Practices Based on Florida’s Educator Accomplished Practices (Professional Practices),” and “Individual Accountability for Student Academic Performance Based on Identified Assessments (Student Performance).” The Professional Practices category accounts for 67 percent, and Student Performance accounts for the remaining 33 percent of a teacher’s annual evaluation score. For purposes of quantifying a teacher’s annual evaluation, IPPAS identifies the Professional Practices category as “Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation,” and the Student Performance category as “Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation.” Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation is completed in the spring of each school year and consists of the supervising principal’s annual evaluation of the teacher, the teacher’s self-assessment, and the collaboration and mutual accountability score. The evaluative components of Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation are comprised of the previously referenced “five dimensions.” Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation is determined based on student academic performance data (VAM score) as calculated by the FLDOE. VAM scores are released by FLDOE in the fall, and these scores reflect student performance for the preceding school year. Consequently, a teacher will not receive an overall annual evaluation score for the immediate preceding school year until the fall semester during which VAM scores are available. As a practical matter, this explains, in part, why the recommendation for termination letter sent to Respondent by Superintendent Mullins was issued on March 26, 2019.2 2015-2016 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 25, 2016, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a score of 27.71 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the category of “Needs Improvement.” On or about November 2, 2016, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 56.71 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2016-2017 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 5, 2017, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a score of 20.42 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about November 13, 2017, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 50.42 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2 VAM scores for the 2017-2018 school year were released on or about October 19, 2018. As discussed elsewhere herein, Respondent was placed on 90 days probation following the release of her VAM score. The timing of the release of the VAM score, coupled with the 90-day probationary period and related matters, account for the March 2019 date of Superintendent Mullin’s letter to Respondent. 2017-2018 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about May 3, 2018, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent received a score of 34.58 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about October 19, 2018, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-18 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 64.58 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” A PLAN FOR ADDRESSING PROFESSIONAL DEFICIENCIES The School Board, in order to address Respondent’s professional deficiencies as identified during the relevant evaluation periods, provided support to Respondent through the utilization of Professional Development Assistance Plans (PDAPs). PDAPs are designed to provide a teacher with opportunities for professional development, which includes access to online resources, training activities and courses, and opportunities to work with School Board resource and peer mentor teachers. The School Board, acting through Respondent’s supervising administrators, agreed in the PDAPs to support Respondent’s professional growth and development as follows: By providing access to the “District Peer Mentor Teacher for collaboration on dimension 3.” By conducting “informal observations documented in ProGOE with feedback for improvement.” By providing “resources on utilizing formative assessment to check for understanding.” By providing “resources regarding implementing differentiated instruction.” By providing “resources on the utilization of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge.” By providing “exemplary sample lesson plans as a model … to follow.” By providing “pacing guide if needed.” By meeting every two weeks to review weekly lesson plans. By providing Respondent with “an exemplary teacher to observe, as well as a substitute [teacher] for class coverage during observation.” By providing a list of Professional Development courses on classroom management, as well as a substitute teacher to cover Respondent’s class while she attends the course. By providing “assistance and specific feedback from school based coaches.” By completing “informal observations on a bi- monthly basis, and provid[ing] feedback.” The evidence establishes that the School Board honored its commitment to Respondent as outlined in the respective PDAPs. 90 DAYS OF PROBATION, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR TERMINATION By correspondence dated October 29, 2018, the School Board advised Respondent of the following: In accordance with section 1012.34(4), F.S., this shall serve as the District’s notification of unsatisfactory performance. Please be advised that your Professional Service Contract for the 2018-19 academic year is on a probationary status for ninety (90) days. Your contract is being placed on probation due to your receiving an overall “Needs Improvement” rating on your last three (3) consecutive annual performance evaluations. See also section 1012.22, F.S. During the next ninety (90) days, you will be evaluated periodically. You will be apprised of any progress achieved in writing. You will work with the administration of your school to assist you in obtaining opportunities to help correct any noted deficiencies. After February 25, 2019, the ninetieth (90th) day, administration has fourteen (14) days to assess your progress. If no improvement is shown, administration will notify the Superintendent if you do not rate an overall Effective on the Summative Part 1 of your evaluation. Sincerely, Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School Respondent, during her 90-day probationary period, continued to receive professional development services from the School Board, which included working with a peer mentor teacher, participating in CHAMPs training, receiving assistance from a math content specialist, and observing an exemplary math teacher. Burt Clark was the principal at the school where Respondent worked when she was placed on probation. As the principal, Mr. Clark served as Respondent’s supervisor and was responsible for evaluating her performance. During Respondent’s probationary period, Mr. Clark regularly met with Respondent and her union representative to discuss Respondent’s progress and offer assistance. In addition to meeting with Respondent, Mr. Clark also conducted one interim evaluation, four informal observation, and two formal observations of Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark also conducted a number of “walk-throughs,” which provided additional insight into the status of Respondent’s professional development. While it is true that Mr. Clark’s observations of Respondent mainly occurred in the classroom where Respondent was the teacher of record, as opposed to Respondent’s work as a “push-in” teacher, Mr. Clark credibly testified that he had sufficient data to assess Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark, at the end of the probationary period, determined that Respondent’s professional deficiencies remained, and on March 6, 2019, he made the following recommendation to Superintendent Mullins: Ms. Lisa Lemieux had an overall unsatisfactory performance appraisal. We have worked with her to try to improve her instructional strategies; but, it has not been successful in changing the behavior to better serve the students assigned to her. As defined in [section] 1012.34(4), [Florida Statutes], February 25, 2019, was the 90th day since the notification of her 90-day probation for this contract year and after demonstrating no improvement on the Summative Part 1, I have assessed that the performance deficiencies have not been corrected. I would recommend the termination of her employment with Brevard Public Schools. Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School After receiving Mr. Clark’s recommendation to terminate Respondent’s employment, Superintendent Mullins reviewed Respondent’s last three years of evaluations, considered the extensive support and training provided to Respondent by the School Board, and concluded that termination of Respondent’s employment was warranted and justified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Brevard County enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy D. Envall, General Counsel Brevard County Public Schools 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940 (eServed) Mark S. Levine, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Shannon L. Kelly, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Howard Michael Waldman Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Dr. Mark Mullins, Superintendent School Board of Brevard County 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
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
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was an instructional employee of the School Board of Dade County. In that capacity, Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis at Rainbow Park Elementary School from the beginning of the 1974-1975 school year through the end of the 1976-1977 school year. During this period, Respondent was placed on continuing contract on the recommendation of Andel W. Mickens, Principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School. During the 1976-1977 school year, after he had been placed on continuing contract, Respondent, while employed as a physical education instructor at Rainbow Park Elementary School, was involved in an altercation with students from another school in which Respondent suffered some injury, the nature of which is unclear from the record. It is, however, clear that after this altercation, Respondent's effectiveness as an instructor at Rainbow Park Elementary School, suffered dramatically. After the incident, Respondent was unable to control or discipline students in his classes, and was, therefore, unable to adequately organize students for instructional work. In fact, the school principal or another member of the administrative staff was required to be present in Respondent's classes to insure that some instructional progress could occur. As a result, the principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School recommended at the conclusion of the 1976-1977 school year that Respondent be transferred to another school. Respondent was transferred to Crestview Elementary School for the 1977-1978 school year. However, problems which had initially surfaced while he was still at Rainbow Park Elementary School continued at the new location. Respondent was instructed by the principal of the Crestview Elementary School that uniforms were not to be utilized as part of that school's "after-school programs", and that "all-star" games against other schools in the area were not to take place. Respondent, in direct disregard of these instructions, collected monies from students at Crestview Elementary School for the purchase of uniforms, and scheduled "all-star" games between Crestview Elementary School and other area schools. In the scheduling of these games, Respondent did not obtain the prior permission of, nor in fact did he consult, the principal of Crestview Elementary School. One of the "all-star" games was cancelled by the principal when he learned, the day before the game was to be played, that it had been scheduled by Respondent. When it was discovered that Respondent had collected monies for the purchase of uniforms for use in the after-school program, he was directed to return these monies to the individual students. In addition, Respondent on several occasions left classes unsupervised during his tenure at Crestview Elementary School. One of these occasions occurred when Respondent was contacting students scheduled to participate in the aforementioned "all-star" game. Another of Respondent's problem areas while at Crestview Elementary School dealt with his inability to organize his classes. Students were observed climbing trees during times when they should have been participating in Respondent's physical education class. A representative from the Area Office of the Dade County School Board specializing in physical education was called in specifically to consult with Respondent concerning the organization of his classes. Few, if any, of the consultant's suggestions were implemented by Respondent, whose classes remained disorganized. Finally, notwithstanding direct instructions to the contrary, Respondent allowed one of his physical education classes to participate in "tackle" football. There was no equipment at Crestview Elementary School to insure that participation in this type of activity would not result in injury to elementary school children. In fact, one child was injured in the course of one of these games, and reported this fact to the principal, who then prevented Respondent from continuing these activities. Although Respondent started the 1977-1978 school year at Crestview Elementary School, he was returned at the request of the Crestview principal to Rainbow Park Elementary School on November 9, 1977. The principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School, who had earlier suggested that Respondent be given a continuing contract, testified that Respondent appeared to be a "totally different person" upon his return to Rainbow Park Elementary School. She testified that Respondent evidenced irrational and bizarre behavior, and, on one occasion after a teacher-principal conference, Respondent snatched written suggestions concerning conduct of his classes from her hand, ripped them up before her and stalked from the room. Respondent could not control discipline in his classes and would, on occasion, scream and curse at his students. On one occasion, Respondent used excessive physical force in removing a student from one of his classes to the principal's office. Respondent would often not be in place to receive his classes when they were brought to him by the classroom instructor, and, on occasion would bring his classes back from the physical education fields before their class time was completed. Respondent's classes were disorganized to the point that activities occurring in his classes bore no resemblance to lesson plans. The principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School attempted to assist Respondent in organizing his classes by making suggestions and calling in consultants from the Area Office, but Respondent refused to accept constructive criticism. As a result, the principal of Rainbow Park Elementary School again requested that Respondent be transferred, which, in fact, occurred on December 12, 1977, when Respondent was reassigned to Carol City Senior High School. Respondent was employed at Carol City Senior High School from December 12, 1977 through the end of the 1977-1978 school year. At this new location, Respondent again encountered problems with school administrative and instructional personnel. According to the principal of Carol City Senior High School, Respondent repeatedly arrived late for classes, and submitted only "sketchy" lesson plans for his classes. In addition, the principal of Carol City Senior High School requested that Respondent be transferred to another school when it came to his attention that Respondent had attempted to "recruit" athletes from another area high school in order for them to participate in athletic programs at Carol City Senior High School. Respondent continued to experience problems with controlling his classes, and with using profanity toward students and members of the school administration. On one occasion, Respondent, a physical education teacher, called the chairman of the Physical Education Department at Carol City Senior High School a "mother fucker" in the presence of other teachers and students, and told him "to sit [his] ass down." Respondent continued to react negatively to evaluations or critiques, and, on one occasion snatched an evaluation from the hands of an assistant principal at Carol City Senior High School, and used profanity in response to that negative evaluation. At the beginning of the 1978-1979 school year, Respondent was assigned to Carol City Elementary School. Although there is no reason clearly reflected in the record, Respondent was transferred from Carol City Elementary School to Parkway Junior High School on October 27, 1978. The principal at Parkway Junior High School was the assistant principal at Carol City Senior High School with whom Respondent had had earlier difficulties. Respondent continued to experience these same difficulties at Parkway Junior High School. The school's principal received a complaint shortly after Respondent's conduct of his classes. Specifically, the complaints concerned Respondent's lack of control of students in the classes, and his failure to remain in the area where his classes were meeting. The school principal contacted Respondent to attempt to arrange a conference with other instructional personnel to resolve these problems. However, when the principal spoke with Respondent, Respondent began to use abusive language toward him. The school principal advised Respondent not to report back to Parkway Junior High School, but instead to report directly to the Area Office. Respondent indicated that he would not report to the Area Office, whereupon the principal advised him that if he returned to Parkway Junior High School, he would be arrested. Respondent then advised the school principal that if he had him arrested " . . . I will kill your mother fucking ass." Thereafter, Respondent was suspended as an instructional employee, and these proceedings ensued. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact in this proceeding. To the extent that proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher on an annual contract basis. Respondent first began working for Petitioner in February 1987, as an elementary teacher at Westview Elementary School. She taught at Westview Elementary School from February 1987 to the end of the 1986-87 school year and at Miami Park Elementary School during the 1987-88 school year. Both Westview Elementary School and Miami Park Elementary School are public school in the Dade County School District. For the 1988-89 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a first grade class at Westview Elementary School. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent was 29 years of age. Respondent had received training as to Petitioner's disciplinary policies. She was aware of Petitioner's general disciplinary policies and the specific disciplinary procedures in place for Westview Elementary. During the 1988-89 school year there was in place at Westview Elementary an assertive discipline policy which was designed to discipline students without the use of physical punishment and which prohibited the use of physical force by teachers in the discipline of students. Teachers were instructed to remove disruptive students from the classroom by referring them to the administration office. If a student would not willingly go to the administration office, the teachers were to summon an administrator to the classroom to take charge of the disruptive student. In Respondent's classroom at Westview Elementary there was a coat closet that had hooks and shelves for storage. This closet was left without light when the two doors to this closet were closed. S.W., D.C., and D.W. were, during the 1988-89 school year, first grade students in Respondent's class at Westview Elementary. From the beginning of the 1988-89 school year, Respondent disciplined S.W., D.C., and D.W., individually, by placing each of them at various times in the coat closet and by then closing the two doors to the closet. On each occasion, the respective student was left in darkness. Respondent administered this punishment to S.W., a student Respondent characterized as having emotional problems, on seven separate occasions. Respondent administered this punishment to D.C. on at least one occasion and to D.W. on more than one occasion. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. During the 1988-89 school year, D.N. and S.M. were first grade students at Westview Elementary School who were assigned to Ms. Ortega's class. On February 14, 1989, Respondent observed D.N. and S.M. fighting while returning to their class from lunch. Ms. Holt, a substitute teacher temporarily assigned to that class while Ms. Ortega was on maternity leave, was the teacher in charge of D.N. and S.M. Respondent did not think that Ms. Holt could manage D.N. and S.M. Instead of referring the two students to the administration office, Respondent, with the permission of Ms. Holt, took D.N. and S.M. to Respondent's classroom to discipline the two students. Respondent had not been asked to assist Ms. Holt in this fashion. Respondent placed D.N. and S.M. in separate corners of the room and instructed them to be quiet. While Respondent attempted to teach her class, D.N. and S.M. continued to misbehave. D.N. began playing with a fire extinguisher and S.M. began writing and drawing on a chalkboard. To discipline D.N., Respondent tied his hands behind his back with a red hair ribbon. While he was still tied, Respondent placed the end of a broom handle under D.N.'s chin, where it remained propped until it fell to the floor. Respondent then placed the fire-extinguisher into D.N.'s tied hands to show him that the heavy fire extinguisher could harm him if it fell on him. These actions took place in Respondent's classroom in the presence of Respondent's class. Respondent frightened D.N. and almost caused him to cry in front of his fellow students. Respondent exposed D.N. to embarrassment and subjected him to ridicule from his fellow students. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. To discipline S.M., Respondent placed him in the coat closet. Respondent closed one of the doors and threatened to close the other door if S.M. did not remain still and quiet. After S.M. did not obey her instructions, Respondent closed the other door of the closet which left the closet without light. While S.M. was in the coat closet, Respondent remained stationed by the second door and continued instructing her class. After a brief period of time, Respondent let S.M. out of the dark closet. Respondent knew, or should have known, that this form of discipline was inconsistent with Petitioner's disciplinary policies. D.N. and S.M. remained in Respondent's class until a student sent by Ms. Holt summoned them to the library to participate with the rest of their class in vision and hearing testing. D.N. had to walk from Respondent's class to the library with his hands tied behind his back. This exposed D.N. to further embarrassment and ridicule. Ms. Holt untied D.N.'s hands in the library in the presence of other students. The ribbon which Respondent had used to bind D.N.'s hands behind his back left red marks on D.N.'s wrists. Ms. Holt immediately reported the incident to the principal. During the course of its investigation into the incidents involving D.N. and S.M., Petitioner learned of the prior incidents during which S.W., D.C., and D.W. were punished by being placed in the closet. Following the investigation of the Respondent's disciplinary methods, Petitioner suspended her without pay on May 17, 1989, and instituted proceedings to terminate her annual contract. Respondent timely demanded a formal hearing of the matter and this proceeding followed. The progressive discipline approach used by Petitioner in some cases involving teachers who violate disciplinary procedures usually requires that a reprimand be imposed for the first offense. Subsequent violations by the teacher would result in the imposition of progressively severe sanctions, culminating in dismissal. The progressive discipline approach is not used in a case involving a serious breach of policy such as where an established pattern of violations is established. Respondent's repeated practice of placing students in a darkened closet, which began at the beginning of the school year and continued into February when the incident involving D.N. and S.M. occurred, established a patterned breach of disciplinary procedure. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the school became impaired because of her repeated breaches of discipline policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order which finds Katherine R. Santos guilty of misconduct, which affirms her suspension without pay, and which terminates her annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3064 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Recommended Order. The students, who are identified by initials, are described as being first grade students rather than as being a specific age. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact relating to Respondent's having struck a student with a ruler and having twisted the ears and arms of other students are rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in material part by paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 16 and 17 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the ribbon was tied loosely is rejected because of the marks left on the student's wrists. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being conclusions and as not being findings of fact. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected. A finding that none of the students were struck or hit is rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. A finding that none of the students were abused is rejected as being a conclusion that is unnecessary to the results reached and as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence is that Respondent had been advised as to Petitioner's disciplinary policies and that she knew or should have known that the forms of punishment she was using violated those policies. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 10 that the discipline inflicted on these students does not amount to corporal punishment is rejected as being a conclusion that is unnecessary to the results reached and as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Standards 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Did Petitioner successfully complete the necessary requirements for the Polk County School Board's (Board) Interim Principal Program as mandated in the Program for Preparing New Principals, promulgated under Section 231.087(5), Florida Statutes, by the Board and if so, should Petitioner be granted certification as a school principal in the Polk County School District?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In accordance with Section 231.087(5), Florida Statutes, the Board adopted a certification program for new principals in Polk County titled Program for Preparing New Principals (Program). All new principals in the Polk County School System are required to successfully complete and be certified under the Program. The Program is composed of several different programs. One of the programs is the Interim Principal Program which provides as follows: Introduction The Interim Principal Program provides a year-long experience which is designed to assist the Interim Principal in enhancing his/her administrative competencies. The Interim Principal Training Program is designed as a support program rather than performance appraisal mechanism. Goals The goal of the Polk County Interim Principal Program is to enable the Interim Principal to: Practice the skills of administration with the support and coaching of a supervisory team. Determine needs, set goals, establish priorities and seek avenues for achieving positive results. Adapt to stressful situations. Effectively and clearly express information orally and through written means, in both formal and informal situations. Develop self-confidence in a work setting and work role. Develop the expertise to manage a school site. Meet the requirements of Section 231.0861 (3), Florida Statutes. Be creative, maintain a positive climate and encourage teamwork within the school organization. Assume responsibilities at the school site with the guidance and support of peer principals. Participate in additional learning experiences to enhance the on-the-job experiences. Program Goals/Strategies Documentation will consist of the Interim Principal's goals expressed in a way which identifies the objective, lists the activities leading to the attainment of the objective, and the expected results in specific, measurable terms when possible. Two types of goals are to be formulated by the Interim Principal. They are: Organizational Goals Professional Growth Goals (developmental) The Interim Principal will formulate a minimum of two (2) goals within each of the categories. Formative Checklists These instruments are based on the Florida Principal Competencies and Job Function/Task Analyses. They are used as resources for identifying developmental needs of the Interim Principal and may provide a basis for the goals and related strategies and/or the off-site experiences and other training activities. Developmental Activities Program This is a calendar of events/activities which lists the specific activities in which the Interim Principal participates during the school year. These activities may be related to district, regional and state-wide training workshops or any off-site experiences in which the Interim Principal participates. Handbook of Helpful Hints for the First Year Principal Summative Checklist The handbook contains a "list of things to do" for the first year principal and is used by the Interim Principal to document areas of focus related to job expectations. Items are checked-off as they are handled. Supervisory Team The supervisory team for an Interim Principal consists of: The appropriate area superintendent Two peer principals Human Resource Development representative The two peer principals are selected by the area superintendent in consultation with the Human Resource Development representative and Interim Principal. They will also serve as members of his/her support team. The supervisory team's function is to review the Interim Principal's program and to provide input regarding the progress of the Interim Principal to insure the completion of his/her goals and developmental activities program. Each member of the supervisory team will interact with the Interim Principal at the school at varying times during the year. At least three (3) team conferences will be held with the Interim Principal, one meeting by the end of month three, one by the end of month eight and one by the end of month eleven. These meetings are in addition to the regular meetings with the area superintendent as a part of the district's performance appraisal system. Support Team Support team consists of: 1. Two peer principals The support team provides guidance and aid to the Interim Principal in the development of the goals and assists the Interim Principal as needed. Support team members serve as professional resource persons with whom the Interim Principal may consult during the year. Portfolio A portfolio for each Interim Principal will be housed in the Area Superintendent's office. The portfolio will include the names of the support staff, the written development goals, the formative checklists, Developmental Activities Program, "Handbook For The First Year Principal" checklist and a copy of the annual performance appraisal forms. Performance Appraisal The evaluation process for Interim Principals will be the same as that for experienced principals, and the same performance appraisal instruments will be used. Procedures Procedure Dates/Time Parameters Step No. 1 First/Month The Human Resource Development representative will provide an orientation concerning the Interim Principal Program, with emphasis on documentation methods. The Interim Principal and previous supervisor complete formative checklists related to Florida Principal Competencies and Job Function/Task Analyses. Interim Principal plans potential goals. Step No. 2 End of First Month The Interim Principal schedules a meeting with area superintendent and Human Resource Development representative to discuss possible goal statements, discuss formative checklists, select members of peer support team, and schedule supervisory team meetings. Step No. 3 Second Month The Interim Principal and Human Resource Development representative meet to establish Developmental Activities Program and to devise an action plan for the attainment of the potential developmental goals. Step No. 4 End of Second Month The Interim Principal prepares annual goals to include at least two developmental (professional growth) goals and two organizational goals. He/she submits copy to Area Superintendent and Human Resource Development representative. These goals will be a part of the district performance appraisal procedure. The Interim Principal meets with the peer principals to provide them with an orientation to the school, its programs, etc. Step No. 5 Third Month The Interim Principal experiences a two hour "shadowing activity" by each peer principal on separate dates. Peer principals record observations which will be shared at the initial meeting of the supervisory team to be scheduled by the end of the third month. The Interim Principal also may schedule time to shadow each of the peer principals prior to their shadowing visit. Shadowing experiences may occur throughout the interim principal program. Step No. 6 End of Third Month The Interim Principal schedules the initial meeting of supervisory team and provides agenda. First half of the meeting should include a status report of activities/progress made on each of the organizational and developmental goals. Second half of agenda will involve support team and Interim Principal in any additional planning that might be appropriate. The peer principals also discuss observations from their "shadowing" experience. **Additional meetings of the supervisory/support team may be scheduled on a group or individual member basis as needed. Step No. 7 End of Fifth Month The Interim Principal meets with the peer principals to review goals and strategies and to seek their input concerning goal/strategy adjustment and/or revision. Step No. 8 End of Eighth Month The Interim Principal schedules a second team meeting. The purpose is to prepare for major activities in function/task areas as are appropriate to the calendar. Plans and concerns are shared. Team members provide input and assistance. Step No. 9 Eleventh Month The Interim Principal schedules the final meeting of supervisory team and provides agenda. The purpose of the meeting is to review the results obtained by the Interim Principal in reference to his/her goals and participation in DAP activities and to reach a consensus among team members concerning a recommendation for Level II certification. Step No. 10 Eleventh Month The Area Superintendent and Human Resource Development representative verify portfolio. The Area Superintendent completes summary appraisal forms (if necessary) and makes the appropriate recommendation to the superintendent related to Level II certification. In 1996, Petitioner was appointed by Dr. John Stewart, who was then Superintendent of the Polk County Schools, to participate in the Interim Principal Program. Petitioner was assigned to the Haines City High School as principal for the 1996-97 school year, and remained there as principal through the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner had not participated in the Principal Intern Program. Shortly after being appointed as Interim Principal, Petitioner, in consultation with his area superintendent, Carolyn Baldwin, selected Sharon Knowles and David Lewis as his peer principals, who together with Carolyn Baldwin and the Human Resource Development representative, William P. Strouse, was the Team for the Petitioner's Interim Principal Program. As required by the Interim Principal Program, William Spouse conducted the orientation program for all new interim principals for the Polk County School District on September 30, 1996. The Interim Principal Program is driven by the interim principal who has the obligation of organizing the activities and scheduling of the activities and meetings. Petitioner did not schedule any activities or meetings in his Interim Principal Program during the Fall of 1996. In December 1996, Carolyn Baldwin directed David Lewis to set up an appointment with Petitioner for an orientation with Petitioner at Haines City High School The orientation occurred in January 1997. The orientation consisted of a walk around the campus of Haines City High School and a discussion that focused on the concern for the number of uncertified personnel on the staff at that time and the need for improving student achievement. On April 3, 1997, prior to any Team meeting, Petitioner was provided a copy of the Administrative Performance Appraisal (Appraisal) completed by Carolyn Baldwin, Area Superintendent. The categories provided in the Appraisal only provided for "Above Expectations," "At Expectations," and "Below Expectations." Although Ms. Baldwin had some reservations, she, in fairness to Petitioner, rated him "at expectation" in all 19 of the Performance Expectations listed in the Appraisal. To the Performance Expectation "Commitment to School Mission" Ms. Baldwin added the comment "real sense of commitment to Haines City High School." To the Performance Expectation "Managing Interaction" Ms. Baldwin added the comment "develop a system for prompt attention to parents with problems." The Appraisal also included three individual or unit goals stated by Petitioner as goals to be accomplished. Ms. Baldwin rated Petitioner "at expectations" on all of Petitioner's stated goals. After Petitioner's stated goal, "Enhance and improve the overall appearance and function of the school - this 1st impression for the community, parents, staff and students should be one to be proud of, appealing, and reflective of the academic attitude of the school," Ms. Baldwin added the comment "school climate enhanced significantly in this area, good public relations." After the meeting with David Lewis, there was no further formal activity in Petitioner's Interim Principal Program until April 1997. On April 16, 1997, the Team met with Petitioner. During this meeting, the Team reviewed Petitioner's program and found that there were no interim program professional development goals, no development activities, no complete developmental monthly activities plans, and no peer shadowing had taken place. Also at the April 16, 1997, meeting, Petitioner was advised that it was unlikely that Team would recommend him for certification under the Interim Principal Program. Petitioner proceeded to work on the deficiencies expressed by the Team at the April 16, 1997, meeting. After the April 16, 1997, meeting, the Team expressed concern related to Petitioner's complacency with respect to the Interim Principal Program and Petitioner's level of completion up to that point. It was suggested, and agreed to by the Team, that Knowles, Lewis, and Baldwin would complete an analysis of their interactions with Petitioner related to the Florida Principals Competencies. During April and May 1997, Petitioner conducted shadowing activities and peer principal visits with Lewis and Knowles. On June 11, 1997, Carolyn Baldwin met with Petitioner and discussed her concerns as well as Petitioner's concerns regarding Petitioner's activities, job performance as Principal of Haines City High School, and his progress in the Program. The meeting apparently ended on a positive note. On June 13, 1997, Petitioner conducted another shadowing at the Haines City High School. In June 1997, the Team met to determine Petitioner's areas of need and development. Petitioner was neither invited nor did he attend this meeting. In June 1997, Strouse circulated a list of the 19 Florida School Principal Competencies among the Team members and requested that each Team member identify those areas in which Petitioner had developmental needs. Strouse took the areas in which all members of the Team specified that Petitioner had developmental needs and developed a program for Petitioner to address those needs. This program was titled Florida Principal Competencies -- Analysis of Developmental Needs for Lonnie Smith, Interim Principal Haines City High School (Plan). There was no team meeting with Petitioner or with the team as a whole to discuss the outcome of the survey, the compilation of the results, or to jointly draft the Plan. Petitioner was not aware of, nor did he have knowledge of, the Plan prior to the August 14, 1997, meeting with Superintendent Reynolds. The Plan was presented to Petitioner at the August 14, 1997, meeting with Superintendent Reynolds, Area Superintendent Baldwin, William Strouse, and Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Denny Dunn. Petitioner was advised at this meeting that his Interim Principal Program would be extended a year. The Plan dated August 1997, provides as follows: CLUSTER CONSTANCY OF PURPOSE COMPETENCIES COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION is a pledge to develop and act in accordance with the shared vision, mission and values of the school. The principal needs to exhibit COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION in which he: *personally holds a set of values which are in harmony with the vision and mission of the school; e.g., respect and caring for each individual, belief that everyone can succeed, etc. *is purposeful about linking the school's mission to expected behavior *identifies, models and reinforces behavior which is congruent with the mission and goals of the schools CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION is caring about the impressions created by self, the students, the faculty, the staff, and parents, and how these are communicated both inside and outside the school. The principal needs to demonstrate a greater CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION in which he: *Maintains a safe, orderly and clean school and expects everyone to assume their responsibility for doing so *builds a school culture that provides the best possible teaching/learning environment *controls the flow of negative information. ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY is an awareness of the effects of one's behavior and decisions on all stakeholders both inside and outside the organization. The principal needs to demonstrate ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY by documenting that he: *considers the overall consequences to the school's culture before initiating changes *keeps individuals, both inside and outside the school, informed when data are relevant to them *considers the position, feelings and/or perspectives of other parts of the organization when planning, deciding and organizing *develops and maintains a school climate conductive to learning *is open to discussion and change *builds coalitions and seeks, secures and recognizes allies CLUSTER: PROACTIVE ORIENTATION COMPETENCIES PROACTIVE ORIENTATION PROACTIVE ORIENTATION is the inclination and readiness to initiate activity and take responsibility for leading and enabling others to improve the circumstances being faced or anticipated. The principal must demonstrate a more PROACTIVE ORIENTATION in which he: *provides support for teachers, staff and parents as they take initiative for school improvement CLUSTER: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT COMPETENCIES ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION is having to do things better than before by setting goals that encourage self and others to reach higher standards. The principal give more attention to ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION in which he: *shows appreciation for individual and group efforts and accomplishments *identifies discrepancies between goals and the current status in order to stimulate achievement *uses criteria for effective schools to assess the status of the school as one basis for school improvement. DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION is holding high and positive expectations for the growth and development of all stakeholders through modeling self-development coaching and providing learning opportunities. A principal needs to enhance his DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION in which he: *builds a school, community and culture that supports learning and growth for everyone including self *participates in professional developmental activities as a learner. CLUSTER: COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS SELF PRESENTATION IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS is influencing and having an effect upon the school stakeholders by a variety of means...e.g., persuasive arguments, setting an example or using expertise. The principal needs to demonstrate IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS in which he: *persists until ideas, beliefs and goals are clear to all stakeholders *uses personal presence to influence others, maintains visibility and accessibility. SELF PRESENTATION is the ability to clearly present one's ideas to others in an open, informative and non-evaluative manner The principal must enhance his skills of SELF PRESENTATION in which he: *checks to see that messages are received, and persist until ideas, beliefs and goals seem to be understood *models effective interpersonal communication skills *uses effective listening skills before responding to questions by others. CLUSTER: FACILITATION COMPETENCIES MANAGING INTERACTION TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY MANAGING INTERACTION is getting others to work together effectively though the use of group process and facilitator skills. A principal needs to improve his skills of MANAGING INTERACTION when in which he: *facilitates team and group membership *moderates group discussions and encourages consensus *facilitates interpersonal and intergroup communication *creates a non judgmental atmosphere in order to stimulate open communication personally *promotes collegial behavior. TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY is the ability to adapt one's interaction and behavior to meet the situation. The principal needs to develop skills of TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY in which he: *adopts various roles of listener, facilitator, and confronter as needed *understands how own behavior affects others and makes appropriate adjustments. INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY is the ability to discover, understand, verbalize accurately and respond empathetically to the perspectives, thoughts, ideas and feelings of others. The principal must demonstrate greater INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY in which he: *encourages others to describe their perceptions, thoughts, feelings and perspectives *listens attentively and accurately describe others' behavior, expressed ideas, feelings, and perspectives CLUSTER: CRITICAL THINKING COMPETENCIES INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS CONCEPT FORMATION CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS is the gathering and analysis of data from multiple sources before arriving at an understanding of an event or problem. The principal needs to display an enhanced competence in INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS in which he: *creates and manages a systemic informational gathering process among the various stakeholders of the school community *keeps up-to-date, striving to gather new information from research and other sources which can then be used by the school CONCEPT FORMATION is the ability to see patterns and relationships and form concepts, hypotheses and ideas from the information. The principal must evidence CONCEPT FORMATION when he: *processes data logically and intuitively to discover and/or create meaning *presses self and others to define and understand issues so that problem solving techniques can be applied *practices reflective thinking CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY is the ability to use alternative or multiple concepts or perspectives when solving a problem or making a decision. The principal must demonstrate CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY in which he: *views the situation being faced and the events leading up to it from multiple perspectives *values divergent thinking and considers conflicting or differing views in the process of identifying options for actions *appreciates different perspectives, and ensures that alternative courses of action and their consequences are considered before decisions are made *makes decisions based upon an analysis of options *demonstrates contingency planning skills. CLUSTER: DECISION-MAKING COMPETENCIES DECISIVENESS DECISIVENESS is the readiness and confidence to make or share decisions in a timely manner, using appropriate levels of involvement so that actions may be taken and commitments made by self and others. The principal needs to exhibit greater DECISIVENESS in which he: *recognizes the importance of sharing decisions and decision-making with stakeholders as integral part of organizational learning and development *recognizes that decisions are made at several levels by different people *faces personnel problems as they occur, provides feedback on performance, and makes difficult personnel decisions when necessary *acts quickly to stop possible breaches of safety and/or interruption in operations in discipline situations *decides to let others decide. CLUSTER: MANAGERIAL COMPETENCIES ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY DELEGATION MANAGEMENT CONTROL ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY is the "know-how" (knowledge and skill) to design, plan and organize activities to achieve goals. The principal must improve his ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY in which he: *develops action plans for goal achievement in collaboration with the school improvement team *recruits teachers whose goals align with the mission and goals of the school community DELEGATION is entrusting of jobs to be done, beyond routine assignments, to others, giving them authority and responsibility for accomplishment. The principal must improve his DELEGATION COMPETENCE in which he: *assesses the expertise of self and others and, whenever possible considers the developmental needs and aspirations of others in relation to the jobs and tasks to be assigned *seeks outside help and assistance for tasks or jobs for which time and talents are not available within the school *gains understanding and acceptance for delegated tasks *specifies responsibility and authority for delegated tasks MANAGEMENT CONTROL is the establishment of systematic processes to receive and provide feedback about the progress of work being done. The principal must improve his skills of MANAGEMENT CONTROL in which he: *walks around campus purposefully to check the status of events *holds frequent conferences with staff about student progress *asks for feedback to see how well self is doing *reconsiders, at least annually, the shared vision of the school, its mission and the stated goals *schedules follow-up for all delegated and assigned activities. RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN FOR THE NEEDS RELATED TO THE FLORIDA PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SUPPORT TEAM Lonnie Smith, Interim Principal, Haines City Senior High, will implement the following activities as a way to document successful achievement of the Florida Principal Competency criteria for certification as a School Principal: Develop and maintain a portfolio which contains artifacts related to each of the indicators (as appropriate) for the Florida Principal Competencies as identified by the support team in July of 1997. Provide written behavioral examples for specific competency indicators for which artifact documentation is inappropriate. Provide oral behavioral examples in an interview setting to his supervisor related to specific competency indicators as identified in the summary of developmental needs. Read the Polk County School Board Policy Book and consult with his supervisor and/or other appropriate district level resource people when specific policy questions arise. Participate in Leadership Academy training activities as follows: Facilitative Leadership Leadership Self-Assessment Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People Schedule, plan, and facilitate at least four (4) meetings of the Interim Principal Support Team to provide status reports concerning the developmental needs as identified and action plan accomplishments. One meeting should be scheduled in each of the following months: October, 1997; January, 1998; March, 1998; June 1998. Meet all expectations/processes as outlined in the performance appraisal procedures for school-based administrators. Participate in other training as might be suggested by the Assistant Area Superintendent and where time and content are appropriate. Secure and administer the "School Climate Quality Survey" from Anchin Center, USF (813- 974-5959). Develop an action plan to address any areas of need as identified by the survey results. Participate in additional shadowing experiences with each peer principal at least twice during the 1997-1998 school year. Limit military leave time to a minimum so as to concentrate on successful demonstration of all duties comprehensive of the principalship. Despite several objections to the Plan, including the requirement to reduce his military obligation, Petitioner accepted the Plan and proceeded to work on the 11-point recommended action set out in the Plan. Petitioner did not at this time, or at any previous time, advise the Team that he was of the opinion that he had successfully completed the Program. In accordance with the recommended action set out in the Plan Petitioner: developed and maintained a portfolio; provided written behavioral examples for specific competency indicators for which artifact documentation is inappropriate; provided his Team and supervisor with oral behavioral examples; read the Polk County School Board Policy Book and consulted with his supervisor or other appropriate district level resource personnel when specific policy questions would arise; participated in the leadership academy training activities and completed the three courses outlined in the recommended action set out in the Plan; d scheduled, planned, and facilitated at least three meetings of the Interim Principal Support Team. A fourth meeting of the Interim Principal Support was scheduled and planned by Petitioner but did not occur due to the Program being terminated prematurely in March 1998; participated in other training that was suggested by Area Superintendent Carolyn Baldwin, went to training titled Building a Team, and also went to training provided by the Board and Ms. Baldwin in particular. secured and administered the "School Climate Quality Survey" and, pursued furthering shadowing with the two peer principals. On January 26, 1998, the Team met to review Petitioner's progress, The Team member expressed concern regarding Petitioner's leadership in the instructional/academic programs at Haines City High School, and the need for an academic plan for the school was discussed. On March 5, 1998, the Team met to review Petitioner's progress on the Plan and the Program. The Team's concern regarding the school's academic plan was again discussed. Petitioner was requested to prepare a written description of a plan for improving the school's academic and instructional performance. Petitioner subsequently submitted such a plan to the Team members. Each of the Team members found shortcomings in Petitioner's academic plan. Petitioner's plan: (a) did not address what Petitioner had been asked to address by the Team; (b) lacked substance; (c) lacked quality; and (c) was difficult to understand. On March 16, 1998, the Team met without Petitioner to discuss his progress with the Plan and Program. Petitioner was not present at this meeting due some minor surgery. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to postpone the meeting but decided to let the Team meet without him. However, Petitioner had submitted material to the Team regarding the Plan. After reviewing the material submitted by Petitioner (which apparently included Petitioner's portfolio), the Team, individually and collectively, concluded that Petitioner had not successfully completed the Program in that he had failed to demonstrate satisfactory performance of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies. At this meeting the Team reached a consensus that the Team could not recommend Petitioner for certification as a principal. A memorandum was prepared advising Superintendent Reynolds that the Team was recommending that Petitioner should not receive certification as a principal. Additionally, the memorandum advised Superintendent Reynolds that although Petitioner had made some improvements there had not been a demonstration of performance whereby the Team could recommend School Principal Certification for Petitioner. The Team also agreed at the March 16, 1998, meeting that since Petitioner's evaluation was an integral part of the certification program that Ms. Baldwin, as Petitioner's supervisor, would complete Petitioner's evaluation. On March 17, 1998, Ms. Baldwin prepared Petitioner's Principal Performance Summary Assessment and rated Petitioner "Ineffective" in the following Clusters of Florida Principal Competencies: Proactive Orientation with the following comments: has been proactive in relationship to the physical facility and grounds needs of Haines City High School. lacks proactive orientation in relationship to school's academic performance. discipline issues often become complaint status. Parents express concern about the accessibility of the principal for problem resolution and frequently report referral to the staff persons when the [sic] specifically request to speak with the school principal. Some parents say they do not know who the principal is. lack of participation in decision making regarding emergency plans for school double session (December 1997). decisiveness in relation to safety issues questionable, i.e. bomb threat incident and delay of school evacuation as documented by investigation of Mr. Fred Murphy, Director of Disaster Preparedness; also lack of a clear plan even after numerous bomb threats (which staff members were to search which parts of the building) staff report hesitancy in interaction in planning meetings (guidance staff, specifically) difficulty in simple decision making and follow through (i.e., FBLA supplements, principal awarded 2 available supplements at 100% and 2 more at 33 1/3% with conflicting paperwork on file at the county level.) complaints re: cheerleaders coaching and advertisement of supplemental positions as per collective bargaining agreement affecting basic program start up timeliness and county requirements Sensitivity does not seem to have recognition of consequences of his actions in the larger organization (i.e., letting teachers go home during duty day perceived as abdication of responsibility) development of team approach weak considering 2 years to accomplish (relationships with other administrators disjointed and awkward) tends to isolate himself and participate in peripheral ways only (observed in East Area principal's meetings as well as reported by school staff) lack of networking with peer principal's [sic]; evidences reluctance to use peer principals as resources Analysis weakness in interpreting school's academic data. Uses large minority population and high mobility rate as reasons for school underachievement no observation in concept through conversation or practice of elements of concept formation or conceptual flexibility at a proficient level Leadership Managing interaction weak in group problem solving high number of parent complaints about interaction with school personnel (principal and others) as compared to other area high schools. Four times the number of complaints requiring intervention compared to the next highest number from another high school (48:12 ratio). One other area high school has only 3 complaint calls Work Standards have not observed level of developmental orientation expected of a principal performing effectively Written Communication some ambiguity in written communication, some ideas not clearly communicated (i.e., materials provided to team for interim principal program) Sharon Knowles concluded that Petitioner had failed to adequately perform in the competency of proactive orientation which includes decision-making, improving the school, and decisiveness. Knowles cited specific examples such as Petitioner's decision to delay evacuating the school upon being advised of a bomb threat and his decision to attend a scholarship competition at another school during the time that a law enforcement officer had been killed in the community and his school was in a lock-down. To Knowles this indicated a lack of decisiveness. Also, Knowles concluded that Petitioner's failure to move the Program along in the beginning indicated a lack of responsibility on the part of Petitioner. David Lewis concluded that Petitioner had failed to adequately perform in the competency of proactive orientation. Lewis cited specific examples such as Petitioner's delay in responding to a bomb threat and his lack of involvement in taking the leadership role in diffusing the situation. Lewis cited Petitioner's lack of leadership in responding to a tornado disaster. Lewis cited Petitioner's failure to return to his school during a lock-down of the school after the shooting death of a law enforcement officer in the neighborhood. Lewis also concluded that Petitioner had failed to perform in the cluster of Critical Thinking (Information Search and Analysis, Concept Formation, and Conceptual Flexibility). As a specific example, Lewis cited Petitioner's inability to properly prepare and present an academic and instructional plan for Haines City High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Petitioner did not successfully complete the necessary requirements for the principal certification under the Interim Principal Program and, is further recommended that Petitioner be denied principal certification under that program. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Grizzard, II, Esquire Post Office Box 992 115 Trader's Alley Lakeland, Florida 33802-0992 Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell and Dunlap LLP Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Mr. Glenn Reynolds Superintendent of Schools Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-0391 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondents demoted the Petitioner from the position of school principal to that of assistant principal in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by reason of his race.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was the principal at Rosenwald at times pertinent hereto. He had been the principal of that school since July 1, 1980. The Petitioner had had generally satisfactory performance evaluations for the school years up to and including 1987-1988. In November 1988, Respondent, Jack Simonson, was elected superintendent of the Bay County school system. Mr. Simonson, had run on a platform which included a position that he would insure that school administrators and employees at all levels were rigorously and objectively evaluated as to their performance. It is undisputed that the Petitioner was employed on an annual contract which had to be renewed each year upon renomination by the superintendent. Upon until the first year of Mr. Simonson's tenure as superintendent, the Petitioner had received overall evaluations of achievement "at the level of expectation", which are generally satisfactory evaluations overall. In those evaluations, however, the Petitioner's evaluator did find that the Petitioner needed to communicate on a more ready, relaxed or less formal basis with his personnel and needed to create an atmosphere in which others working with him would feel freer to express themselves in a constructive and orderly manner. In the 1985-86 evaluation, it was found that the Petitioner needed to improve in areas of proper care and maintenance of the school plants, as to plant materials and equipment, and to improve in the area of employee discipline. Although these evaluations were overall at a satisfactory level of performance, these problems or areas of improvement correspond to deficiencies later determined under evaluations under Mr. Simonson's administration. In the first year of Mr. Simonson's administration, which was the 1988- 89 school year, assistant superintendent, Curtis Jackson, was assigned to evaluate the Petitioner. He was unable to complete that evaluation, and Mr. Simonson ultimately declared the evaluation incomplete and unofficial on June 28, 1989. The Petitioner, however, has admitted that this inability to complete the evaluation is not evidence of racial discrimination. The Petitioner had been having problems with a particular student and felt it necessary to request a meeting with Mr. Simonson to discuss those problems. Accordingly, a meeting was held on May 2, 1989 between the Petitioner and Mr. Simonson. The Petitioner's problems with the student in question were discussed, and Mr. Simonson also discussed several areas of dissatisfaction he felt with the Petitioner's performance as principal. The meeting concluded and thereafter on June 21, 1989, the Petitioner, by memorandum, advised Mr. Simonson that his evaluation for the 1988-89 school year had not yet been completed. After declaring the Petitioner's evaluation incomplete on June 28, 1989, on August 1, 1989, Mr. Simonson drafted a memorandum describing the matters discussed at the May 2, 1989 meeting and further addressing areas of the Petitioner's performance as principal, which he viewed as substandard. Mr. Simonson met with the Petitioner on August 24, 1989 to discuss the contents of that memorandum and to discuss the areas in which Mr. Simonson felt the Petitioner's performance to be inadequate. A copy of that memorandum was placed in the Petitioner's personnel file on August 24, 1989. The Petitioner then prepared a statement of his contentions of what had occurred or been discussed at the May 2, 1989 meeting. That statement or memorandum does not appear to have been placed in his personnel file apparently because the Petitioner did not request that it be so placed. In both the August 1, 1989 memorandum and the meeting of August 24, 1989, Mr. Simonson expressed dissatisfaction with a number of performance areas concerning the Petitioner's performance as principal at Rosenwald. He perceived an apparent lack of direction and supervision of staff and students; was concerned about alleged incidents involving sexual acts and acts of violence among students which resulted in the transfer of several students away from Rosenwald. He felt this indicated student unrest and lack of maintenance of disciplinary standards and which ultimately required the placement of a deputy sheriff at the school. He was concerned about complaints he had received concerning a "black heritage program". He admonished the Petitioner that no sort of racism, black or white, would be tolerated in the school system and that racist comments or inappropriate programs should not occur at the school site. Mr. Simonson apparently felt that the Petitioner had made an inappropriate response to the May 2, 1989 meeting consisting of criticizing other school personnel rather than focusing on constructive improvement ideas for the areas Mr. Simonson felt needed improvement in the Petitioner's performance. Mr. Simonson also expressed concern with the Petitioner's handling of school personnel matters and employee evaluations and his skill in staff selection. Mr. Simonson was also concerned with a perceived lack of support for school and district personnel, possible insubordination on the part of the Petitioner and his poor communication skills or efforts with staff and students. Mr. Simonson then advised the Petitioner, by memorandum, that the following areas needed improvement: (1) student discipline, (2) recording keeping on discipline referrals of students, (3) administration of teacher evaluations in terms of the evaluations needing to be more rigorous and thorough, (4) school assembly programs should emphasize Americanism and not embarrass any child because of his or her race, (5) statements made to members of the public should be factually accurate, (6) Petitioner's acceptance of responsibility, (7) support for assistant principals, (8) need for improvement in cleanliness and appearance of the school, and (9) use of school facilities to conduct personal business. Mr. Simonson then advised the Petitioner that the means or methods to correct these perceived deficiencies should be in place by the end of the first semester of the 1989-90 school year, at which time another conference would be scheduled to review the areas of concern. This memorandum was designed to give further notice to the Petitioner that Mr. Simonson perceived there were problems in his performance at Rosenwald and that the Petitioner was expected to make improvement in the areas of perceived poor performance. The memorandum was not and was not represented to be an annual evaluation for the year 1988-89 and states that the Petitioner did not receive an evaluation for that year. The Petitioner, in turn, prepared a memorandum in response to that August 1, 1989 memorandum and had that memorandum placed in his personnel file. The school district administration, including Mr. Simonson, received complaints from various sources in the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years concerning disciplinary problems, safety problems, and problems involving poor academic progress of students at Rosenwald. Incidents occurred and others were alleged from reports of parents, students, or school employees concerning student violence and possible sexual assaults at Rosenwald. The concern over student safety ultimately culminated in the necessity of placement of a deputy sheriff as a school resource officer at the school. Through repetitive complaints of parents and others having contact with the school and its operations, Rosenwald had acquired a poor reputation for its academic quality and the safety of its students in terms of disciplinary problems and resulting dangers to student safety. Aside from the Petitioner's denial that Rosenwald had such a reputation, the evidence concerning it was unrebutted. The evidence establishes that there were a number of areas where the Petitioner's performance was unsatisfactory. In such areas as mentioned above concerning discipline and student safety, as well as the scope of their duties, the Petitioner had communication and personal relationship problems with both his assistant principals in the 1988-89 school year. Those assistant principals had been assigned to Rosenwald with the Petitioner for several years. Until the 1988-89 school year, they had had a cordial working relationship, as well as a friendly, warm social relationship even to the extent of socializing with the Petitioner away from the school environment. They became disappointed with the Petitioner's performance as their leader and principal during the 1988-89 school year in such areas as his handling of student discipline, particularly his alteration of their disciplinary measures, as well as disagreements with the Petitioner concerning the scope of their duties, in terms of additional duties he delegated them. These problems culminated in these assistant principals being reassigned by Mr. Simonson so that the Petitioner had a new set of assistant principals for the 1989-90 school year, Ms. Love and Ms. Stryker. However, the problems of poor communication and poor interpersonal relationships, particularly with Ms. Love, continued in that second school year. There was also poor communication and interaction between the Petitioner and other district and school personnel. The Petitioner on a number of occasions did not appropriately handle severe disciplinary problems. He allowed the parents of a student, who had committed a severe disciplinary violation, to berate the assistant principal who had sought to impose discipline on the student. He should not have allowed a confrontation between the assistant principal and the student's parents to occur. There was a severe disciplinary incident where a number of male students had stripped the clothes from a female student in the gymnasium while several teachers stood by and allowed the incident to happen. Even though the incident happened rather quickly, the teachers did not act quickly and decisively enough to prevent the incident from happening or happening in the severe manner in which it did. Mr. Simonson learned of the incident and wrote a letter to the Petitioner indicating his assumption that the Petitioner would certainly reprimand the teachers. After a substantial number of days elapsed and no reprimands were issued to the teachers, Mr. Simonson, in effect, ordered that they be reprimanded. He felt that the Petitioner displayed indecisive and weak leadership in handling this disciplinary situation, as well as others set forth in the evidence of record. On another occasion, a teacher brought several male students to the Petitioner's class for discipline because of disruptive, disrespectful conduct, including their reference to the Petitioner as "Uncle Eli" in the vein that he was thusly related to one of the miscreant students. It was their belief that "Uncle Eli" was their ally. The Petitioner heard the teacher's explanation of the problem and seemed to handle it in a lighthearted or casual fashion and dismissed the teacher from the presence of himself and the students and had an undisclosed discussion with the students out of the teacher's hearing. The result was that very little was done to discipline the students and the problem continued. The student related to the Petitioner continued to refer to him as "Uncle Eli" and appeared to rely on his relationship with the Petitioner to fail to follow proper rules of deportment. The Petitioner displayed poor leadership abilities. He has typically blamed his disciplinary problems and other problems, such as poor communication skills at Rosenwald, on other teachers or non-instructional personnel and even blamed the disciplinary problems on the high number of minority students and students of a low socioeconomic class, which he characterized as the minority or black students. This was a pattern observed by Mr. Simonson and the assistant principals assigned in both years to the Petitioner, by which the Petitioner, instead of attempting to resolve the problem in a decisive way himself, would shift the blame for problems which were his responsibility to others. He was repeatedly unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for his own mistakes or for decisions that he was required, in his position as principal, to make without delegating them to others. He had a habit of delegating duties or responsibilities of his office to others without following up to see that the delegated duties were carried out. Then when the desired results were not achieved by the person to whom they were delegated, he would fail to accept responsibility for the failed task and instead would blame the failure on the person to whom the task had been delegated without accepting any responsibility himself. He displayed a substantial degree of disorganization in his administrative duties and responsibilities. He did the required teacher evaluations belatedly and hurriedly so that they were fraught with numerous mistakes. In the course of attempting to do the teacher evaluations, he asked his assistant principals to make negative comments about certain teachers which made them uncomfortable because this was not appropriately their duty. Rather, the evaluations of the teachers was the sole responsibility of the principal. The Petitioner asked a parent to sign an affidavit in his support which was later listed as a potential exhibit in this proceeding during a meeting with the parent where the parent's stepchild's discipline was discussed and on that occasion, reduced. In the instance where the female student's clothes were torn off by a group of boys in the gymnasium, the Petitioner was slow to investigate and to make a decision concerning whether or not the teachers involved were negligent and whether or not they should be reprimanded. This necessitated Mr. Simonson's intervention in the question of discipline of the teachers who allowed the situation to occur. The condition of the school plant and grounds was another matter of concern of the county administration and Mr. Simonson. The plant condition had been allowed to deteriorate over time during the Petitioner's tenure as principal. His attention was called to it by Mr. Simonson and the county administration, and his reaction was that he had sent in work orders and the maintenance department had repeatedly refused to act upon them in a timely way. He also maintained that Rosenwald was getting reduced funds with which to make capital improvements or repairs, compared to other middle schools which he seemed to allude was for racially discriminatory reasons. In fact, it was established that the maintenance personnel of the county system had not delayed or refused to act upon maintenance request orders submitted by Rosenwald or the Petitioner, and it was established that Rosenwald had suffered no deficit in terms of capital outlay funds as compared to other schools. In fact, it had received more than some schools. When funds were not forthcoming for the projects which the Petitioner wanted accomplished, it was because of the great expense of constructing a new school and because of the preexisting maintenance, repair and capital outlay schedule arrived at and imposed by the prior superintendent's administration. Mr. Simonson was not able to alter this in a short period of time. Funds were scarce and had to be parceled out and scheduled for each school, taking into account that scarcity. The evidence shows in an unrefuted way, however, that Rosenwald received as much as any other school for the same items of maintenance or capital outlay and, in fact, received more than some schools. The Petitioner's testimony was impeached in these particulars. In short, it was demonstrated that the Petitioner exhibited poor leadership skills and abilities in a substantial number of the areas that, indeed, Mr. Simonson had complained to him about, verbally and in the above- mentioned memoranda. In these memoranda, and particularly the August 1, 1989 memorandum, Mr. Simonson gave specific directions to the Petitioner regarding improvement of his performance and regarding the expectations the superintendent had regarding the Petitioner's administration of the Rosenwald school for the upcoming 1989-90 school year. Thus, the Petitioner was clearly on notice that he was expected to improve his performance with regard to the areas Mr. Simonson had discussed and forewarned him about as early as the spring of 1989, if he wished to remain as principal of Rosenwald. There is no question that Mr. Simonson attributed the various discipline, leadership, organizational and management problems existing at Rosenwald to the Petitioner's poor performance as a principal. Although some improvement was noted by assistant superintendent Hamby when she evaluated the Petitioner during the 1989-90 school year, in large part, the Petitioner, instead of conscientiously seeking to effect improvements in his administration, embarked on an effort to challenge Mr. Simonson, in the electronic media and otherwise, regarding his views about the Petitioner's performance, even to the extent of publicly challenging various steps Mr. Simonson took to improve the situation at Rosenwald including his appointment of Ms. Love as assistant principal. He otherwise sought to transfer blame for shortcomings existing in the administration and management of Rosenwald to others, and to make excuses, including the attempt to publicly allege that his problems were the result of racial animus. He rallied the assistance of some of the faculty and black community to assist him in his effort to challenge Mr. Simonson. One of Mr. Simonson's major campaign positions in seeking election as superintendent was to more rigorously evaluate school personnel. He carried this intent out after his election by regularly reminding administrators of his desire that they conduct accurate evaluations of the employees they supervised. During his term as superintendent, he strictly pursued the evaluation of district administrators. This policy resulted in the non-renewal of the contracts of four administrators, who were white. They were either returned to the classroom or left the school system. During his term, he reduced one black administrator from principal to assistant principal, the Petitioner. No black administrators were either returned to the classroom or terminated. Mr. Simonson repeatedly reminded the assistant superintendents and other administrators under him, responsible for evaluating the employees they supervised with the necessity for accurate, objective, and fair evaluations. Accordingly, with a view toward evaluating the Petitioner for the 1989-90 school year, Mr. Simonson sought an evaluator who could objectively, fairly and accurately evaluate the Petitioner. Assistant superintendent, Glenda Hamby, had been hired as an assistant superintendent in June of 1989. She had not been in the Bay County school district administration or employ during the previous 1988-89 school year, having been a school superintendent herself in another county at that time. Mr. Simonson believed, because she had not been a part of the school system or administration, that she could have an objective, fresh approach in the evaluation process for the Petitioner with no preconceived notions concerning his capabilities or past or current performance. Therefore, Ms. Hamby commenced the evaluation process for the Petitioner for the 1989-90 school year. She evaluated him in accordance with appropriate, applicable procedures, and he was evaluated in the same manner as were all other principals. In accordance with Mr. Simonson's instructions to her, she actively lent assistance to the Petitioner to aid him in improving his performance in certain areas, such as pupil discipline. Ms. Hamby visited Rosenwald and the Petitioner numerous times during the 1989-90 school year. She observed him at monthly principal meetings, middle school curriculum meetings, and sometimes at special curriculum meetings. She tried to help him by suggesting that he be more visible on campus, visit classrooms more frequently, in order to project the image that learning is important, as well as to help him in making teacher evaluations. She, at all times, "bent over backwards...to be very fair". Ms. Hamby found that the Petitioner needed to make improvements in the area of leadership skills through better communication with students, faculty and other staff members, as well as administrators. She explained that an effective leader communicates well with students, parents, and staff. She rated the Petitioner "below expectation" in communicating skills because of a need to improve on internal communications with his staff, the need to give clear directions, make sure that his expectations were clearly understood, and the need to give clear, concise and properly-structured written communications. Ms. Hamby gave the Petitioner an overall evaluation of "below expectation" for the 1989-90 school year. He was given "below expectation" ratings in the areas of leadership, decisiveness, managing interaction, and communication skills. In the area of "persuasiveness", he was rated between "at expectation" and "below expectation". She tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in this area and used her discretion to not rate him at "below expectation", even though that was the category next lower than "at expectation", because she was trying to assist the Petitioner and be fair to him. Some specific examples of the communication problems exhibited by the Petitioner in his performance as principal included miscommunication concerning the location and number of students to be in attendance at the "Freedom Shrine" dedication ceremony, a faculty meeting misunderstanding between the Petitioner and assistant principal, Ms. Love, exhibited in front of the other staff members, and a misunderstanding concerning funding for an ESOL program which resulted in the Petitioner erroneously firing an aide at Rosenwald because of his belief that funds for the program were exhausted. His misunderstanding concerning the aide's salary, funding situation, and his failure to accurately investigate the situation before acting is a clear example of poor communication skills, efforts and leadership. Poor communication skills by the Petitioner are also evidenced by a summary he prepared of the May 2, 1989 meeting with Mr. Simonson. This summary, which was attached to Petitioner's FCHR complaint, contained numerous grammatical errors. The Petitioner acknowledged that the summary contained grammatical errors and admitted that improper grammar in a written communication diminishes the effectiveness of that communication. Additionally, while he attempted to blame the numerous errors in Respondent's exhibit 1 on "typos" (although it was attached to his FCHR complaint) a handwritten memorandum from the Petitioner also contains fundamental grammatical errors. See Petitioner's exhibit 68D in evidence. Ms. Hamby rated the Petitioner "below expectation" in the area of decisiveness, because she had observed the Petitioner "a number of times" not being as decisive as he should have been. She particularly noted that he had the habit of delegating tasks to other staff members without accepting any further responsibility for those tasks. He would typically not follow up on a task he delegated, but later, if he disagreed with the way the task was handled, he would disclaim responsibility on the basis of the delegation and blame mistakes on the staff person carrying out the delegated task involved, even though his was the ultimate responsibility as principal to see that the task was accurately carried out. In regard to the Petitioner's "below expectation" rating in managing interaction, Ms. Hamby recommended that he participate in a review seminar or in-service program on problem-solving techniques. Some of the reasons for the "below expectation" rating in managing interaction were the considerable difficulties he had in his relationships with two different sets of assistant principals and complaints from parents concerning discipline problems or miscommunications. Although Ms. Hamby explained her rating as to persuasiveness "at expectation" but above the "below expectation" rating as an attempt to be fair, she stated that she did see some improvement in this area in terms of persuasion and motivation of staff and students and focusing on learning, although not sufficient improvement. Her rating of the Petitioner at "below expectation" in the area of organizational ability and delegation of authority was also based upon poor communication with his staff and failure to follow up and accept responsibility for delegated tasks. Ms. Hamby explained her overall evaluation of "below expectation" in terms of the Petitioner being an administrator of substantial years of experience but who was still demonstrating many of the behaviors seen most frequently in a first-year administrator which should be corrected after the first year. In a veteran administrator, Ms. Hamby felt one should not observe those same inadequate performances. Therefore, she ranked him at "below expectation". When Ms. Hamby finished this evaluation, she wrote a memorandum to Mr. Simonson recommending that the Petitioner be re-assigned because she felt that he was simply not competent to be a principal at Rosenwald, especially given the fact that he had been a principal for a number of years and had not improved to an adequate degree. Thus, based upon her observations and consideration over the course of a substantial part of the school year, she made this recommendation to Mr. Simonson, and he approved it. In many or most of the areas concerning the Petitioner's performance, the testimony of Ms. Hamby and Mr. Simonson is in direct opposition to that of the Petitioner. In this regard, it is determined that the Petitioner was the least credible witness of the three. He was impeached a number of times upon cross-examination. He testified, for instance, in a deposition, that three maintenance directors under three different superintendents' administrations had refused to timely perform work orders requested of them for work to be done at Rosenwald. At hearing, however, the Petitioner testified that, instead, he did not feel this was the case. He answered evasively concerning whether he had really meant capital improvement projects, instead of mere maintenance work orders (capital improvement projects are not necessarily the sole decision- making responsibility of maintenance directors), and testified, in effect, that he did not feel that that was the case until he was confronted by his earlier testimony, which he attempted to rationalize. Additionally, he testified at hearing that he had never attributed disciplinary problems at Rosenwald to the large number of blacks at the school, while in his written summary of the May 2, 1989 meeting with Mr. Simonson, he repeatedly does so and blames the disciplinary problems at Rosenwald on the large number of blacks with their attendant socioeconomic disadvantages and cultural differences. In this document and in his testimony at hearing, he affirmatively expressed the desire that the proportion of blacks in the "mix" of the student population at Rosenwald be reduced in order to improve the disciplinary problems. Another instance of the Petitioner's testimony being impeached occurred when, in the course of his testimony, the Petitioner disputed the testimony of David Ruttenberg. The Petitioner emphatically testified that Mr. Ruttenberg had signed a letter of reprimand issued to him by the Petitioner. The letter was then produced and introduced into evidence and clearly was unsigned by Mr. Ruttenberg. Further, in carefully considering the testimony of Mr. Simonson, Ms. Hamby, and the Petitioner, and in observing their various personal demeanors on the witness stand, it is obvious to the Hearing Officer that the Petitioner in delivering his testimony was repetitively evasive and argumentative. He repeatedly sought to avoid directly answering questions, particularly those posed upon cross-examination. His evasiveness and argumentativeness effectively rendered his testimony pervasively self-serving. Contrastingly, the testimony of Mr. Simonson and Ms. Hamby was not effectively impeached. Their testimony regarding the deficiencies in the Petitioner's performance, when considered with that of the Petitioner, is more credible and worthy of belief. The Petitioner claimed repeatedly, but never established, that Mr. Simonson and Ms. Hamby, the various assistant principals and other administrators who had served under the Petitioner and Mr. Simonson were part of an illegal conspiracy to demote the Petitioner on account of his race. He never established that those persons had any communication between themselves concerning a scheme or concerted plan of action to get rid of the Petitioner for any reason, much less that of his race. Mr. Simonson may have expressed the intention to the Petitioner that he intended to remove him from his position if improvements were not made in the following school year, but there is no evidence whatever that Mr. Simonson and the other persons whom the Petitioner accuses of engaging in an illegal conspiracy ever communicated any illicit desire to demote or "get rid of" the Petitioner among themselves. In summary, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner did not possess the qualities of leadership, communication skills, and disciplinary effectiveness, and other skills to a sufficient degree in order to be an effective principal at a middle school such as Rosenwald. The evidence establishes that he was unable to adequately perform those duties and functions as principal. It is important to note, and it is found, that although the evidence establishes that the Petitioner did not possess these skills to a sufficient degree to justify his retention as principal at Rosenwald, it is also established that Mr. Simonson had a good faith belief that the Petitioner's performance as principal in these particulars was so deficient and acted on that belief, rather than for reasons of discrimination against the Petitioner because of his race. Upon receipt of Ms. Hamby's evaluation of the Petitioner, with the accompanying memorandum, Mr. Simonson recommended to the Respondent, Bay County School Board (Board), that the Petitioner be removed from the position of principal of Rosenwald. He did not, however, recommend his termination but rather that he be reassigned to another position. In due course, the Board voted 4 to 1 to adopt Mr. Simonson's recommendation that the Petitioner's principal contract not be renewed. Before taking the vote, the Board was advised that they could reject Mr. Simonson's recommendation that the Petitioner not be renominated should they believe it to be for discriminatory reasons and in violation of relevant federal law. The Board voted 4 to 1 to adopt Mr. Simonson's recommendation. In discussing this course of action and recommendation with the Petitioner, Mr. Simonson told the Petitioner that there was a need for and that he had a desire to create a position in the county administrative office for which he felt the Petitioner would be well-suited, which was a position that would promote the recruitment of minority teachers. It would involve a lateral transfer at the same salary level. The Petitioner said that the offer "sounded good" and that he would like to discuss it with his wife and advise Mr. Simonson at a later time whether he wished to accept the position. Mr. Simonson agreed, but the Petitioner later advised Mr. Simonson that he did not want to accept that position and thereafter, the Petitioner embarked on the campaign culminating in the filing of the petition with the Human Relations Commission accusing Mr. Simonson and the Board of racial discrimination. Thus, the evidence reveals that, initially, Mr. Simonson did not intend to demote the Petitioner, but rather, sought to reassign him to a different position in the county administration at the same salary level. Ultimately, thereafter, the Petitioner was assigned to an available position as assistant principal at MowatMiddle School. The assistant principal's position in the school district's pay scale of necessity carried a lower salary level associated with it so that the Petitioner's salary was, therefore, reduced by his assignment to that position instead of the one offered by Mr. Simonson. Mr. Simonson stated, when asked his reasons "in a nutshell" for reassigning the Petitioner, were that he had not seen the degree of improvement in the situation at Rosenwald that he would have liked to have seen exhibited during the past school year. Mr. Simonson testified that he felt Rosenwald needed a "change in direction" and it is obvious that Mr. Simonson meant that he was dissatisfied with the performance of the Petitioner as principal of Rosenwald and that, as described in his testimony, the degree of improvement he had indicated to the Petitioner was required before the 1989-90 school year commenced had not been realized at the end of that school year and the Petitioner was re-assigned. It is obvious that Mr. Simonson believed and testified, in effect, that a change in principals could bring a change in direction toward improvement of the conditions at Rosenwald, which he described in his testimony needed improvement, and which he had described as needing improvement to the Petitioner. Mr. Simonson was the decision-maker who recommended to the Board that the Petitioner be removed as principal for reasons of inadequate performance and the Board adopted that recommendation and reasons by its 4 to 1 majority vote. The evidence in the record clearly demonstrates in the form of Mr. Simonson's direct testimony that the above-mentioned reason articulated for the removal of the Petitioner as principal and his reassignment was for reasons of inadequate performance, in the context of the reasons clearly articulated in Mr. Simonson's direct testimony as the decision-maker who made the decision and recommended it to the Board. Mr. Simonson has clearly and adequately articulated nondiscriminatory reasons for the action he took and recommended to the Board and which the Board adopted. During Mr. Simonson's four years as superintendent of Bay County schools, no other black employees instituted charges against him involving racial discrimination. During his tenure as superintendent, which was only one term, Mr. Simonson hired six black administrators. This was three times more black administrators hired than had been the case with the previous administration. When the Petitioner was removed as principal, Mr. Simonson recommended, and the Board approved, the non-renewal of the contracts of four other administrators, all of whom were white. Two of those white administrators were reassigned as classroom teachers, rather than being afforded the opportunity afforded the Petitioner to remain in an administrative capacity, albeit at reduced salary. At least one of those four white administrators who were demoted left the school district either by discharge or voluntarily in order to avoid the effect of demotion. Upon the Petitioner's removal as principal, Mr. Simonson recommended, and the Board approved, his assignment of Ms. Carol Love, an assistant principal at Rosenwald, to be principal. Ms. Love is a white female. The evidence establishes that Ms. Love did provide a change in direction toward improvement of the conditions perceived as problems by the Petitioner. Students' test scores improved, discipline improved, and communication with the district personnel and amongst the school staff improved. Progress was made in terms of awards earned by the school and its students, as for instance in the local science fair competition. Under Ms. Love's administration at the school, parental and community involvement improved; and improvement was shown in instructional operations. Planning and involvement of the staff in planning and carrying out plans were shown to be improved, as were staff evaluations. Gradually, as a result of these measures, the community image of Rosenwald as an effective school improved. More efforts were made to seek new and different learning opportunities for students and educational enhancements for the school. The evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Simonson and the Board's intent and reasons for re-assigning the Petitioner was not to discriminate against him because of his race or for any other discriminatory reason, but rather to seek improvements in the educational and disciplinary environment at Rosenwald. The remarks made by Mr. Simonson during a Lions Club meeting speech concerning which there was testimony and argument in this proceeding or those made regarding the celebration of "black history month" at Rosenwald did not establish that his reasons for demoting the Petitioner were pretextual. The remarks did not express any contempt, hostility, or a discriminatory animus toward blacks as a race or toward any blacks, including the Petitioner, in particular. In fact, Mr. Simonson expressly stated that he cared for his students, both black and white, and that he desired that the Bay County school system would begin to observe Martin Luther King Day as an official holiday. He stated that while he did not have any particular strong feeling about Dr. Martin Luther King and stated, in effect, that his attitude was essentially neutral concerning the subject of Dr. King and the holiday (much like he felt about Columbus Day) that he understood that it meant a great deal to black people and black students, or words to that effect. He also stated that he would not tolerate racism of any kind in his administration and the school system, or words to that effect. These statements, and the statements he was reputed by the Petitioner to have made, concerning the manner in which the "black history month assembly" was conducted and concerning the purported singing of the song "we shall overcome" at that assembly also did not exhibit any racial animus toward the Petitioner or any other black person, individually, or as a race. The gravamen and tenor of the remarks made by Mr. Simonson were clearly to the effect that he would not tolerate racism of any kind perpetrated by any person and expressed a particular concern that no student should be made to feel embarrassed on account of his race. Such remarks and statements do not show that the employment action taken, and the reason given, was a pretext for discrimination nor do they constitute direct evidence of racial discrimination because of the substance of the statements themselves, and the context in which they were made clearly shows that Mr. Simonson did not intend to express nor to mean by the statements any verbal act of hostility or discriminatory attitude, motive, or animus directed toward any individual because of his or her race, or to any group, because of the racial makeup of that group. There was no evidence establishing an immediate past history of discrimination in the Bay County school system. Bay County had not just recently converted from a racially-dual system. The desegregation order in the Youngblood case was entered in 1970. The consent order concerning which testimony and argument has been elicited was entered in 1988. The consent order, however, cannot constitute evidence of an immediate past history of discrimination because there was no admission or proof, in the proceeding culminating in that consent order, that the Board and school district had engaged in racial discrimination. Rather, the consent order is merely a contract between the Board and school district and the potential litigants who entered into the agreement culminating in the consent order. That agreement was entered in hopes of avoiding litigation and in order to satisfy the concerns of one segment of the community concerning the issue of closing of some "sixth grade centers". The Board did not admit in the discussions culminating in the consent order, nor in the consent order, that any discrimination had or was taking place. Consequently, there has been no evidence in this case which can show an immediate past history of discrimination with regard to the Bay County school district. Neither has there been any evidence which establishes that Rosenwald had been discriminated against in terms of capital outlay funding or in the completion of work orders for maintenance or other work. Concerning capital outlay, more money per student was spent at Rosenwald than at the other three middle schools. Additionally, nine out of every ten work orders submitted by Rosenwald were performed by the district. Mr. John Bruce, chairperson of the executive council of Acure (Advisory Committee for Urban Revitalization Equity), a plaintiff in the Youngblood case and a community supporter of the Petitioner during his tenure as principal at Rosenwald and during his efforts to regain that position, admitted that he did not contend nor believe that the Respondents had not fulfilled their obligations to eliminate discrimination in the area of facilities for a period of three years or longer. In summary, the greater weight of the probative and relevant material testimony and evidence establishes that the Respondents, including Mr. Simonson, never took any discriminatory action against the Petitioner on account of his race. Mr. Simonson, as the decision-maker in the employment decision regarding the Petitioner, clearly articulated in his testimony a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action taken in removing the Petitioner as principal of Rosenwald, offering him another position suited to his talents and of equal salary, and ultimately, because he refused that position, appointing him as an assistant principal at reduced salary. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's performance as principal at Rosenwald during the two school years in question was deficient and inadequate in such a way as to render him not qualified to hold or retain that position. The Petitioner has simply failed to prove his case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order by entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding that the Respondents have not violated Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, with regard to the employment action taken against the Petitioner, Eli Campbell. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 10th day of August, 1993.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
