The Issue Whether the Respondent’s conduct of December 10, 11, and 12, 1996, on the Rosenwald Exceptional Education Center campus constitutes insubordination, conduct unbecoming a school board employee, and just cause for termination/discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, James Byrd, is employed by the Petitioner, Seminole County School Board, as an instructional assistant at Rosenwald Exceptional Education Center. The employment relationship between the school board and the Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of collective bargaining agreement between the school board and the Seminole Educational Clerical Association (SECA), for the period July 1, 1995-June 30, 1998, as amended August 14, 1996. The applicable collective bargaining agreement does not require progressive discipline as a predicate to termination. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner since August 25, 1991. There were no incidents of discipline involving Petitioner prior to his arrival at Rosenwald. Respondent received satisfactory ratings in his performance evaluations during his employment with the Petitioner, including his current supervising teacher, Annette Hill. On September 30, 1996, Respondent had engaged in a dispute with another employee, LaCeina Walker, in the presence of a student. Respondent also engaged in inappropriate conduct regarding John Wyatt, a teacher at Rosenwald, relating to the incident regarding Respondent and Walker on September 30, 1996. At a meeting held by Dr. Michael Kahn (Kahn) with Respondent to discuss the incident of September 30, 1996, the Respondent became quite agitated and aggressive. Respondent accused Kahn of being racially unfair regarding the letter of reprimand. Kahn is the administrator in charge of the Rosenwald Exceptional Education Center. Respondent received a Letter of Concern for conduct relating to the September 30, 1996, incident from Kahn. The Letter contained a directive not to engage in verbal disputes with employees in the presence of students and that he was to make an effort to get along with other staff members. Walker was also given a similar letter. On December 10, 1996, Respondent received a two-day suspension for an incident involving Margie Robinson, which was a violation of the September 30, 1996, Letter and directive. The two-day suspension did not require school board action. The incident underlying the two-day suspension involved a dispute between Robinson and Respondent concerning a student’s point sheet. As a part of Rosenwald’s behavior management program, students earn points for certain positive behavior. The points are then used to earn rewards. Robinson thought that the Respondent had given a student points when they had not been earned. Upon meeting with the two employees, Robinson and the Respondent, Kahn concluded that the dispute was the result of a misunderstanding, primarily on the part of Respondent. Kahn resolved the misunderstanding and sent Robinson and Respondent on their way. After leaving Kahn’s office, Respondent became verbally abusive of Robinson. Respondent’s verbal confrontation of Robinson was a direct violation of the September 30th directive. On December 12, 1996, when Kahn attempted to discuss the incident concerning Robinson with Respondent, Respondent came to Kahn’s office. He refused to discuss the matter and then, without permission to leave, exited Kahn’s office and went to his classroom. After Respondent left Kahn’s office, Kahn followed Respondent to his classroom in an attempt to deliver the Letter of Suspension. Respondent refused to respond to Kahn’s statement, and Kahn then left the letter on Respondent’s desk in front of Respondent. Kahn then left the room. Respondent has engaged in disrespectful or confrontational conduct with other Rosenwald employees after joining the Rosenwald staff and before December 13, 1996. Respondent’s conduct on December 11 and 12, 1996, was insubordinate and conduct unbecoming a school board employee.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent’s action on the Rosenwald Exceptional Education Center on December 10, 11, and 12, 1996, constitutes insubordination and conduct unbecoming a school board employee, and that Respondent’s conduct constitutes just cause for termination. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of September, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 4th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County Public School Educational Support Center 400 East Lake Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer and Brooks Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County School Board Educational Support Center 400 East Lake Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773
Findings Of Fact Respondent attends Thomas Jefferson Junior High School. With the exception of band class which he attends regularly and achieves high marks, his absentee rate (unexcused) is approaching 50 percent and he is receiving failing grades. He is frequently disruptive in class and disrespectful to his instructors. He regularly comes late to his classes or leaves before being excused. Petitioner has made frequent attempts to assist Respondent. All available counseling and disciplining techniques have been used without success. Respondent will be 16 years old in September and intends to withdraw from school at that time. Respondent and his mother seek his release from mandatory school attendance now so that he may begin vocational training. School officials agree that this is appropriate, but the application has not been completed due to communication problems between Mrs. Perez and Thomas Jefferson Junior High School.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assigning Respondent to its opportunity school pending release from mandatory school attendance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Sylvia Perez 460 Northwest 125 Street Miami, Florida 33168 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues for determination at the final hearing were: 1) whether the Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to incompetency; and 2) whether the conflict in the statute cited in the Notice of Charges dated November 18, 1982, and the Notice of Hearing dated June 18, 1983, constitute inadequate notice to the Respondent Muina of the charges against him. At the final hearing, Marsha Gams, a learning disability teacher at Carol City Junior High School, Rosetta Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education, Dade County School Board, Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, Karen Layland, department chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., Executive Director of Personnel, Dade County School Board, testified for the Petitioner School Board. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-13 were offered and admitted into evidence. Yvonne Perez, Bargaining Agent Representative, United Teachers of Dade, Alexander Muina and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., testified for the Respondent. Respondent's Exhibits 1-5 were offered and admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, the Respondent requested via telephone conference call, that Respondent's Exhibit 6, the published contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, be admitted into evidence as a late-filed exhibit. The contract was admitted over Petitioner's objection. Proposed Recommended Orders containing findings of fact have been submitted by the parties and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. When the parties' findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence introduced at final hearing, they were adopted and are reflected in this Recommended Order. To the extent that the findings were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been either rejected, or when possible, modified to conform to the evidence. Additionally, proposed findings which were subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary have not been adopted. On July 11, 1983, the Petitioner filed objections to the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty. Certain of the Petitioner's objections were subsequently stipulated to by the Respondent and are not in issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Alexander Muina has been employed by the Dade County School System for approximately nine years. He initially worked with regular students, then worked as an assistant teacher with profoundly mentally handicapped students. During the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent became a permanent substitute in a class for the trainable mentally handicapped. He held this position for approximately two months and during that period received a satisfactory annual evaluation. During the 1980-81 school year the Respondent was assigned to the "ESOL" Program which is an acronym for English for Speakers of Other Languages. During this period, the Respondent taught as an itinerant teacher at three different schools each week. One of the schools the Respondent was assigned was Carol City Junior High School, where he taught on Thursdays and Fridays, as part of the Entrant Program. This was a program which was established for the approximately 13,000 children who had entered the Dade County School System during the Mariel boat lift. Mrs. Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, compiled the Respondent's annual evaluation for 1980-81 after consulting with the two other principals to whose schools Respondent was also assigned. At that time, Respondent received an acceptable annual evaluation from Cortes; however, Cortes had not continually observed the Respondent or had continuous direct contact with him since he was only at the school two days a week. At the close of the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent asked Cortes if there was an opening in exceptional education in which he could be placed. Toward the end of the summer a position became available in varying exceptionalities, an area in which the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida, and he accepted this position. A varying exceptionality class includes students who have three types of learning disabilities or exceptional problems, including the educable mentally handicapped, the learning disabled, and the emotionally handicapped. Although the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida to teach varying exceptionalities, during his first year instructing the class the Respondent experienced significant problems which are reflected in his evaluations of November, January and March of the 1981-82 school year. The first observation of Respondent as a varying exceptionalities teacher was done on November 5, 1981, by Carol Cortes, principal. The Respondent's overall summary rating was unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for each of the students were not being followed. The Respondent was not using the IEPs to develop activities for the students which would meet the goals of providing "diagnostic prescriptive teaching." Using the IEPs and the diagnostic prescriptive teaching techniques is crucial to the success of exceptional educational students. The students were not being taught according to their individual abilities, but rather were doing similar classroom work. Additionally, classroom management was lacking in that the Respondent did not formulate adequate behavior modification plans for the students who were observed talking and milling about the classroom. Following her first observation, Cortes offered assistance to Respondent, including changing his physical classroom layout and placing him with the department chairperson. This was done so that the chairperson could assist in developing the activities and plans necessary for the students and could also provide support in developing behavior modification plans. Cortes also asked the school psychologist to work with the Respondent in establishing such plans. Dr. Gorman, the assistant principal, had frequent informal observations of the Respondent in an attempt to help him with his classroom difficulties. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Cortes on January 20, 1983, and the overall summary rating was again unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was still not following the student's IEPs. He continued to assign the same general activities to all students regardless of individual differences. His class was confused regarding their goals. Because the Respondent was not teaching toward the objectives set forth in the IEPs, the children were not achieving a minimum education experience. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because he did not have adequate control over the students. Students were walking around the class and the class was generally noisy The work that the Respondent did with individual students was in the nature of giving directions rather than actually teaching. In order to teach it is necessary to provide students with new concepts and provide teacher input rather than simply monitor students. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because his lesson planning was deficient. He spent the majority of time in the classroom attempting to discipline students. His grade book was kept in an inappropriate manner and the students were frustrated. As a result of these problems, Cortes requested that the Respondent visit a program at Madison Junior High School which had an acceptable behavior modification program in place. The Respondent visited the program on January 26, 1982; however, no substantial improvement after the Respondent's visit was noted. The Respondent also took a reading course in late January, 1982. No significant improvement was noted following completion of that course. In January of 1982, a social studies position at Carol City Junior High School became available. Cortes offered that position to the Respondent and he could have transferred into the social studies department if he had so desired. The Respondent, however, elected to remain in the field of exceptional student instruction. At that time, Cortes felt that the Respondent was attempting to deal with his deficiencies and he should be given the opportunity to correct the problems with his class. Mrs. Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education for Dade County Schools, made a routine visit to Carol City Junior High School on January 27, 1982. She had heard from one of her education specialists that there were difficulties in classroom management in the Respondent's classroom. She observed that many of the students were not on task in that they walked around the classroom, talked out loud, and called the Respondent "pops". A few of the students tried to work, but the noise level in the class was so high it was disruptive. Vickers chose not to do a formal observation at that time, because she felt that there were many areas that she could not have marked acceptable. Instead, Vickers chose to do a planning session with Respondent on that same date. At the planning session, Vickers discussed with Respondent such topics as getting the students on task, bringing supplies and materials, completing assignments and doing homework. She discussed IEPs with the Respondent and the minimal skills tests that the children are administered in grades 5, 8 and 11. She explained to the Respondent how to use a grade book and examined the student's work folders. Although the folders contained significant amounts of work, the work did not correlate with the objectives on the children's IEPs. Vickers was also concerned that the Respondent was monitoring the class rather than directly instructing the students on specific skills. He did not pull individual students or groups aside for direct instruction. Vickers returned to the Respondent's classroom on February 25, 1982, in order to conduct a formal observation. At that time, Vickers gave the Respondent an unacceptable overall summary rating. She found him deficient in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, student-teacher relationships, and acceptable in the category of preparation and planning. She rated the Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because a serious problem existed with the management of his students who were not on task. The students were not working in an orderly fashion and the class was so loud that it distracted the class on the other side of the room. When Vickers tried to speak with the teacher in the adjoining room, the noise level in the Respondent's class prevented a successful conversation between them. Due to these problems, the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience. Children with learning disabilities are easily distracted by visual or auditory interference; this problem was occurring in Respondent's class. Vickers rated the Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he was not using the diagnostic prescriptive teaching method that is required in the Dade County School System. Respondent was not utilizing small groups to give specific help with skills, but was instead, monitoring. Vickers also rated the Respondent unacceptable in assessment techniques. Exceptional education teachers are required to do a profile on each student showing the skills that the student has met and the skills that the student needs to improve. The Respondent did not meet this requirement. Finally, Vickers found the Respondent unacceptable in student-teacher relationships since she observed that the students showed an unacceptable level of respect for the Respondent. Vickers suggested that the Respondent visit three other exceptional education teachers along with regular teachers in school. She also scheduled an assertive discipline workshop for exceptional education teachers and asked that Respondent attend. The Respondent however, did not attend the workshop. On March 25, 1982, Cortes completed Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82 and recommended nonreappointment. This annual evaluation took into consideration all of the observations done by administrators in the building. She found the Respondent unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Cortes next observed the Respondent on May 17, 1982, and again gave him an overall summary rating of unacceptable. She found him unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning and classroom management. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was not following the IEPs for the students. Cortes observed that the Respondent misspelled a word on the black board and the students copied his misspelling. Classroom management remained unacceptable because most of the class was not working. The Respondent continued to have difficulties controlling his students who continued to address him inappropriately by calling him "pops". As the Respondent moved from student to student, the remainder of the class was either talking or milling about the room. Respondent did not have understandable classroom rules and resultant consequences for breaking such rules. Rather than institute positive rewards for students who met the classroom criteria, his emphasis was on negative reinforcement. Following Cortes' discussion with the Respondent as to these deficiencies, she continued to see minimal improvement. It was also recommended that the Respondent visit Mrs. Layland, the department chairperson, to observe her classroom management techniques. Layland had a behavior modification plan in place and was able to work individually with each student while other students remained on task. The Respondent did visit Mrs. Layland's class but there was no significant improvement following that visit. On May 24, 1982, Cortes performed a second annual evaluation on the Respondent in which she found him unacceptable in one category, preparation and planning and acceptable in the remaining categories, but did not recommend him for reemployment. The second annual evaluation had only one unacceptable category, preparation and planning, and overall Respondent was rated unacceptable. However, the area in which the Respondent was rated unacceptable is especially important in the context of exceptional education. Preparation and planning is an important aspect of this field since planning for exceptional education students must be done on an individual basis. Additionally, the teacher has to plan what each student will be learning over a given period of time, and such planning is necessary in order to successfully instruct these students. Notwithstanding the Respondent's improvement, Cortes moved for his nonreappointment at the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year. The Respondent, however, was reappointed for the 1982-83 school year, when it was determined that the documentation upon which the nonreappointment was to be based was insufficient due to noncompliance with the existing union contract. Prior to the completion of the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent, through his area representative, Yvonne Perez, requested a transfer back into a regular classroom where the Respondent could teach Spanish or Social Studies. This was based on the Respondent's recognition that he was encountering extreme difficulties in teaching varying exceptionalities. Patrick Gray, Personnel Director for the Dade County School System, was aware of the request for a transfer on behalf of the Respondent and agreed to consider it. Gray subsequently determined not to transfer the Respondent, and reassigned him to his existing position. Following his assignment back to Carol City Junior High School, Cortes began to formally observe the Respondent. The first such observation of the 1982-83 school year occurred on September 13, 1982, less than one month after teachers had returned to school. Cortes observed the Respondent and documented an observation sheet with five attached papers. Observations performed the previous year had included only one statement. Approximately one month later, Cortes conducted another observation with four detailed attachments. The documentation provided to the Respondent in September and October of 1982 was accumulated to verify or affirm the decision which was made by Cortes in May of the prior year, to terminate the Respondent. Based on Cortes' observations of the Respondent while he was employed at Carol City Junior High School, she would not recommend him for a teaching position in any other field. According to Cortes, the Respondent is lacking the basic skills necessary to be a successful teacher. Marsha Gams, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1981-82 school year and Respondent's supervisor, met with the Respondent on numerous occasions during the course of his assignment to Carol City Junior High School. Although Gams saw improvement on Respondent's part during the period that she observed him, the improvement was not significant. Based on Gams' observation of the Respondent's class, she felt that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience since the Respondent did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum and materials required for the learning disabled and educable mentally handicapped students. The Respondent's class eventually affected Gams' students due to the noise level which came from his adjoining class. Karen Layland, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1982-83 school year, also worked with the Respondent. They had joint planning periods and spent a number of afternoons reviewing lesson plans, methods, curriculum, and matching materials to IEP objectives. According to Layland, the Respondent's basic problem was that he did not clearly understand the requirements of teaching varying exceptionalities Layland did not observe significant academic progress in the Respondent's class. The Respondent's grade book was disorganized and the materials contained in the student's folders were not appropriate for the particular students. Moreover, there was a lack of organization in his classroom in that students left class without permission. Although Layland felt that the Respondent was well intentioned, he did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum, teaching management and behavior management that are necessary in an exceptional education setting. Even if Layland had been allowed to continue to work with the Respondent for the remainder of the school year, she did not feel that he could have been brought up to a competent level to teach varying exceptionalities during that period of time. Based on her observations, Layland believed that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience due to the Respondent's lack of definite knowledge of methods in instructional techniques for varying exceptional students. By November, 1982, the School Board had made a determination that the school system had exhausted its remedies to raise the Respondent's performance to an acceptable level. Although the Respondent had obtained an acceptable rating from Cortes at the end of the 1982 school year, even this evaluation demonstrated a serious deficiency on Respondent's part. Additionally, during the 1981-82 school year the Respondent encountered numerous significant problems which had not been adequately remediated in order to permit him to continue teaching varying exceptionality students. The school board administration declined Perez' request that the Respondent be transferred into a regular class on the belief that the Respondent was incompetent in basic classroom instruction. However, based on the Respondent's teaching record prior to his employment at Carol City Junior High School, the Respondent encountered difficulties only when he was teaching varying exceptionalities, and in other fields, his basic skills were documented as acceptable. At all material times, the Respondent was employed as an annual contract teacher and did not hold a professional service contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Dade County School Board affirming the dismissal of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 26th day of September, 1983.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the professional service contract of the Respondent with the School Board of Dade County should be terminated for misconduct in office, gross insubordination and incompetency due to inefficiency.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, who is 40 years old, became a teacher in 1985 and taught from 1985 through March 4, 1992 as an employee of the School Board of Dade County. She held a professional service contract. Before the 1989-90 school year her teaching performance was adequate. During the 1989-90 school year she was employed at Kinloch Middle School as a sixth grade language arts teacher. Students at Kinloch are predominately of Hispanic background. In May, 1990 she was reassigned to Edison Middle School, where the students are predominantly African-American. During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent had a difficult time managing the behavior of the children in her classroom. Walking by her classroom at Kinloch, administrators often saw the class in serious disorder, with students running around, yelling, throwing papers, and not doing school work. On one occasion an assistant principal found 40 to 50 paper balls on the floor of her classroom. On another day while the students were engaged in a "paper fight," one of the students broke a glass display case with his head. One of the assistant principals at the school, Irving Rashkover, performed a formal observation of the Respondent's teaching on March 5, 1991, using the formal observation instrument for assessing teacher performance developed by the School Board of Dade County for all teachers, known as TADS, the Teacher Assessment and Development System. He found that the Respondent was significantly deficient in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and assessment techniques. As is required when an observation shows deficient performance, the Respondent was given prescriptions designed to assist her in improving her performance in her areas of deficiency. Prescriptions are also directives which are given by an administrator requiring the teacher to perform the specific prescriptive tasks, which are designed to improve classroom performance. The prescriptions given to Respondent included such things as requiring her to prepare lesson plans and tests to be turned in to another assistant principal, Mrs. J. Reineke. The Respondent failed to comply with these prescriptions. It would have been difficult for her to perform all the directives, because she was removed from the classroom and assigned to the regional office, not long after the observation of her teaching. She nevertheless failed to perform the tasks that did not require her to be on the school site, such as the preparation of lesson plans for the substitute teacher in her classroom, and recreating her grade book. Because of her poor work performance, the Board required that the Respondent have a psychological evaluation. That evaluation indicated that she might benefit from psychotherapy, but that she could return to the classroom. The Respondent also requested to change her work location. Both she and school administrators believed that a change in schools might assist her in improving her performance, so in May 1991 she was transferred from Kinloch Park to Miami Edison Middle School. Ordinarily, teachers whose performance has been found deficient and who are therefore working on prescriptive activities to improve their teaching are not eligible for transfer. The approval of this transfer showed that the School Board was making a special effort to accommodate the Respondent in an effort to improve her teaching. Respondent was transferred to Miami Edison Middle School as a team teacher. This meant that she did not have primary responsibility for the classroom in which she worked. Another experienced teacher had primary responsibility, and Respondent assisted in teaching. An external performance evaluation was done for Respondent, that is, the TADS evaluation was done by an evaluator who was not an administrator at Miami Edison Middle School. In the new team teaching situation, the external evaluation resulted in an acceptable performance rating for the Respondent. She received an acceptable annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year, despite her earlier problems that year at Kinloch, the need to remove her from the classroom, assign her to the district office and have the psychological evaluation done before her reassignment to Miami Edison. Respondent was placed in a self contained classroom at Miami Edison for the 1991-92 school year. Unfortunately, the deficiencies that she had exhibited at Kinloch returned. A TADS observation of her teaching was done on October 24, 1991. The evaluation found her deficient in planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. She was given prescriptive activities to help her to remediate these deficiencies to complete by November 21, 1991, but she did not do them, even though the matter was brought to her attention in a memo dated December 3, 1991. The Respondent was wholly unable to control her classroom. Her students essentially engaged in free-for-alls during her class periods. They would not remain in their seats, they were talking, running, throwing paper balls at each other, going in and out of the classroom and engaging in fights. While this disorder was taking place around her, Respondent merely sat at her desk and did nothing to control it. Simply put, Respondent did not teach. Her inability or disinclination to require discipline of her students made it impossible for anyone to teach in the circumstances prevailing in her classroom. This was coupled with other unusual behavior by the Respondent: she directed her students to make up and insert their own grades in their progress reports. This is wholly unacceptable conduct by a teacher. Administrators at Miami Edison became aware of the disarray in Respondent's classroom because of complaints by students and parents. Her classroom had been on the second floor, but when students were seen sitting on the window sill, the school administration moved her classroom to the first floor, near the main office. It was hoped that the move would make her classroom more safe for her students, since if she failed to control them they would not be in danger from sitting in upper floor windows, and the proximity to the main office was designed to help improve student behavior since they would be so close to the school administration. The misbehavior, however, continued unabated in her classroom. The level of disorder in the classroom and the consequent lack of teaching caused continuing parental complaints to administrators about the Respondent's performance. Another TADS classroom observation was performed by the school's principal in the Respondent's classroom on November 22, 1991, the day after her prescriptive activities from the October observation were to have been completed. Her performance again was found deficient in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and assessment techniques. Additional prescriptions were issued to Respondent but again she did not complete these either. When these failures were again brought to her attention her response to the administration was that "she didn't feel it was necessary" to comply with the prescriptions (Tr. 87). On December 19, 1991, the principal had a conference with Respondent on her failure to complete the prescriptive activities assigned after the two evaluations in October and November 1991. The principal followed up again, and specifically told the Respondent on January 6, 1992 that unless she complied with the prescriptions, he would recommend that she not be reappointed as a teacher. The disarray in her classroom continued. School security had to go to her classroom to break up fights. Continuing complaints by parents came both to the school administration and to the central administration of the School Board. The photographs of her classroom taken on December 20, 1991, are almost unbelievable (School Board Composite Exhibit 12). The classroom looks as if it were the scene of a riot. Shortly after that day, Respondent was removed as a classroom teacher. During a formal "conference for the record" with the Director of the Office of Professional Standards of the school board, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, in January 1992, the Respondent stated that student behavior was the responsibility of the students, not the teacher; the teacher's duty is to teach and the student's duty is to learn, but if students don't want to learn there is nothing the teacher can do about it; and, that she was powerless to change the student's behavior. The principals of Kinloch Middle School and Edison Middle School both testified that in their opinion, which is credited, the Respondent was incompetent as a teacher, and that her failure to maintain discipline in her classroom after receiving assistance in doing so through prescriptions for improved classroom management constituted misconduct in office and gross insubordination. Neither would willingly reemploy her as a teacher at their schools. The repeated complaints about her classes, rising from the school level to that of the central district administration, is further persuasive evidence that Respondent has lost her effectiveness as a teacher in the community. The Respondent has failed to create an effective and safe learning environment for students in her classrooms. Based on her prior acceptable evaluations, she knows how to keep order in her classes. She has also demonstrated by her repeated failure to teach and impose classroom discipline that she is now incompetent to teach. Moreover, her repeated refusal to comply with prescriptions given to improve her classroom performance by administrators at Kinloch and Miami Edison Middle Schools, which are specific directions which have been given to her by administrators with proper authority, constitutes gross insubordination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the School Board of Dade County terminating her employment as a teacher for misconduct in office, incompetency and gross insubordination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of February 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 22nd day of February 1993. APPENDIX The findings proposed by the School Board have been accepted. Findings proposed by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1-3 have been accepted. Paragraphs 5-8 are rejected for the reasons stated in the Findings of Fact dealing with her ineffectiveness, gross insubordination and incompetency by reason of inefficiency. It is true that no annual evaluation of the Respondent's teaching performance showed an unacceptable evaluation. This occurred because she was transferred to the district office and removed from the classroom for a substantial period of time in 1991, and the annual evaluation could not be one finding unsatisfactory performance since, by the end of the year, she was performing satisfactorily in the team teaching situation with another teacher (Tr. 105). She may be able to perform adequately in that situation, but the School Board is not required to employ her as a teacher who needs a guardian in the form of another teacher in her classroom. A competent teacher keeps order in her class herself. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley, 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Standards 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
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 An Administrative Complaint was served on the Respondent in April, 1983. Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Duval County County Schools, was responsible for those charges. In the complaint, it is alleged that Respondent is guilty of professional incompetency in fulfilling his duties as a teacher in the Duval County School System in the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System and had held that tenure at all times relevant to this inquiry. Respondent opposed these allegations, leading to the formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing. Respondent, who has been employed in the school system since 1954, was transferred to Duncan U. Fletcher Senior High School in 1971. Lee remained at Fletcher High through the school year 1979-80. In that year, Lee taught 10th grade English. His performance in the classroom was observed by Dr. Andrew Knight, principal at Fletcher High School, and by other professionals in the school. These observations commenced in September 1979 and continued throughout the school year. By January 30, 1980, Dr. Knight had gained a sufficient impression of the performance of the Respondent to write and inform him of areas of deficiency. A copy of that letter of evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. In addition to setting forth deficiencies, the letter suggests techniques that might be employed to correct the deficiencies. Relevant areas of concern involved classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Those observations as set out in the letter of evaluation and critique of the Respondent's performance are an accurate depiction of the performance. All these items set forth relate to teacher competency and this depiction of Respondent, coupled with similar observations which were testified to during the course of the hearing, demonstrate a lack of competency on the part of the Respondent in performing his teaching duties. The deficiencies set forth in the letter of evaluation were explained to the Respondent in person. Following the interim evaluation of January, 1980, the annual formal evaluation was made on March 12, 1980. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. As depicted in this document, Respondent was still perceived in March, 1980, as giving a poor performance as a teacher. This characterization of his performance, as found in the evaluation of March 12, 1980, is accurate and those observations, together with the observations of his performance as testified to in the hearing, point to the fact that the Respondent continued to be less than competent in his teaching. Throughout that school year, classroom management was the most obvious deficiency. In particular, students were sleeping and talking to each other and not paying attention, a problem not satisfactorily addressed by Lee. As a result, the learning experience was diminished. Moreover, this circumstance was made worse by the fact that Lee's perception of how to plan for instruction and his efforts at carrying out these plans were not structured in a fashion to hold the attention of his classes and promote the goals announced in the Duval County School course Curriculum for Tenth Grade Language Arts. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year 1979-80, and in keeping with the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Respondent was transferred to Edward White High School in the school year 1980-81. The principal at that school was John E. Thombleson. Thombleson was aware of the unsatisfactory rating that Lee had received and undertook, during the course of Respondent's stay at White High School, to observe and assist Lee in trying to improve Lee's teaching. That improvement was not forthcoming. Lee continued to have problems related to classroom management and teacher effectiveness and he was not responsive to beneficial ideas of improvement offered by Thombleson related to in-service assistance. Ideas for improvement which were posed to the Respondent include those set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, admitted into evidence which is a memorandum concerning a conference held with Respondent by Principal Thombleson. Other exhibits admitted pertaining to observations by Thombleson and other administrators at White are found to be accurate depictions of the atmosphere in Lee's classroom related to management and teaching effectiveness. Through October, 1980, visits to Respondent's classes revealed a lack of attention on the part of students, a lack of preparedness by the Respondent, a failure to proceed in a sequence which would be commensurate with the curriculum goals set for the classes, tardiness on the part of the Respondent and students, failure to provide lesson plans to the administration observer, failure to conform to the scheduled lesson plan for the day, and failure to provide continuity between the lesson of the day and the following day's assignment. These were problems that had been observed during Lee's 1979- 80 year at Fletcher. Consequently, the required interim evaluation of October 30, 1980, was not favorable to Lee. A copy of that formal evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence and the observations set forth therein are found to be accurate. Lee was also provided with a memorandum on that date, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This document suggested ways to improve classroom management, teaching effectiveness and classroom performance. Both the evaluation and memorandum of improvement were discussed with the Respondent and the matters of that conference are set forth in the memorandum of October 30, 1980, a copy of which is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20, admitted into evidence. On November 6, 1980, Respondent's grade book was evaluated and found to be deficient, a finding which is accepted. The grade book was not properly documented, among other shortcomings. Respondent, by correspondence of November 18, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24, requested Principal Thombleson to give concrete examples of expectations of the Respondent in fulfilling his teaching responsibilities. This correspondence was replied to by memorandum of December 5, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25, and contains a continuing explanation of ideas of improvement which had been previously suggested by Principal Thombleson. Lee's performance did not improve after this exchange and the final evaluation at White of March 12, 1981, was not positive. A copy of that evaluation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, admitted into evidence and the evaluation's conclusions are accepted. Overall, in the year 1980-81, Respondent did not perform as a competent teacher while at Edward White. Respondent did not conclude the teaching year at Edward White in 1980- In the face of an attitude which Thombleson considered to be insubordinate and the Respondent's expressed desire to be transferred, Lee was reassigned to William Raines Senior High School in April, 1981. For the remainder of that academic year he served as a substitute teacher. It was not established in the course of the hearing what quality of performance Lee gave as a substitute teacher when assigned to Raines High School and it is therefore assumed that that performance was satisfactory. In the school year 1981-82, Respondent was assigned to Raines High School and acted primarily as a substitute teacher. He remained in the high school for that school year premised upon a settlement negotiation between the Respondent and the Duval County School Board pertaining to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint which he had filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the school year 1981-82, the Duval County school administration decided that they would not afford a performance evaluation to the Respondent and none was given. There being no evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that Respondent fulfilled his role as substitute teacher adequately. In the school year 1982-83, Respondent was reassigned to Raines school and worked primarily in the media center program in a nonteaching capacity. Lee did a limited amount of substitute teaching in that year. Jimmie A. Johnson, Principal of Raines school found his work as a substitute teacher to be acceptable as set forth in the memorandum of March 23, 1983, a copy of which is admitted as Respondent's Exhibit B. No contrary position being offered on the question of the quality of performance in the limited role of substitute teacher during that school year, Respondent is found to have performed the role of substitute teacher in a satisfactory manner. Lee's performance as a substitute teacher in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 while accepted as satisfactory does not overcome the established fact that in the school years 1979-80 and 1980-81, when performing the role of full- time tenured teacher in Duval County, he was not a competent teacher. This performance in the substitute role, while similar, is not sufficiently so to provide a quality of rehabilitation which would set aside the present perception that Respondent is not competent to fulfill the role as full-time classroom teacher in Duval County. This finding is supported by the observations of Dr. Jeffrey Weathers, a professional educator who specializes in teacher evaluations related to their classroom performance as to subject matter and general methodologies. Although some of the tasks which Weathers observed in the Respondent's classroom both at Fletcher and White did not pertain to active instruction, to the extent that other tasks observed called upon Respondent to teach, he was not doing so in an effective manner. As Dr. Weathers described, the vital link between activity and learning could not be found in Lee's classes. Weather's observations, together with those of other professionals at Fletcher and White, coupled with the Respondent's less than cooperative attitude, results in the finding that Respondent has not removed the stigma of his incompetence as a full-time classroom teacher through his teaching in the substitute role at Raines. Finally, while the quality of performance by those students at Fletcher and White who were taught by Lee and participated in the MLST minimum skills tests were similar to students of other teachers in the aggregate, this fact is not enough to set aside the impression of the Respondent's competence. As Dr. Curtis Randolph, who was assistant principal at Fletcher in 1979-80, correctly stated upon reflecting on Respondent's performance, Lee is not competent to teach in Duval County Schools.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, should be terminated from her employment as an instructional employee with the Broward County school system.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its six count Petition for Dismissal, Petitioner, through the person of its Superintendent of Schools, William T. McFatter, seeks to uphold its recommendation that Respondent, Alfreda Grady, be dismissed from employment in the Broward County school system. Respondent, Alfreda Grady, was an instructional employee at the School Board of Broward County until she was suspended with pay from her duties at the close of the workday on January 27, 1983. Respondent holds a continuing contract of employment and holds teaching certificates in both guidance and elementary education. During the course of the 1982-83 school year, Respondent was assigned to the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. This assignment was made by Mr. Thomas Wilson, Assistant to the south area Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. Ms. Grady was later assigned to teach sixth grade orientation and social studies. On January 27, 1983, Respondent was placed on emergency suspension and a PETITION FOR DISMISSAL from the Broward County school system was filed based on charges of incompetency, misconduct in office, immorality and gross insubordination. A request was made for a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was thereafter assigned to the undersigned hearing officer to conduct the instant hearing. On August 19, 1982, Respondent was assigned the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. Prior to this assignment, the position of guidance counselor had been assigned to Ms. Ricci Mandell, a teacher previously employed at Attucks. This assignment was made by Taft Green, principal at Attucks Middle School. Both Ms. Grady and Ms. Mandell were retained in the Guidance Department. Approximately two weeks into the school year, Respondent was assigned to teach one sixth grade orientation class. It is not unusual for a teacher to be assigned teaching duties in more than one subject area. (TR Volume 1, p. 193) By letter dated September 1, 1982, Mr. Green informed Respondent that she would begin teaching the orientation class on September 7, 1982. Respondent was also informed by Mr. Green that Ms. Friedman, a reading teacher at Attucks, would supply the necessary material and a course syllabus. Ms. Friedman had previously taught the orientation course during the 1981-82 school year. Respondent was advised that principal Green and the other instructional employees were available to assist her, as needed. Although Respondent never contacted Ms. Friedman for either assistance or to obtain the material, Ms. Friedman supplied the Respondent with a variety of materials to be used in teaching the orientation course including the course guide for middle school orientation and two instructional television books. (TR Volume 1, p. 166) Respondent refused to teach the orientation course. The class was used as either a study hall or the students watched programs such as "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America." On September 15, 1982, Respondent was assigned to teach two sixth grade social studies classes. A memo reflecting this assignment was sent both to Respondent and Ms. Mandell, dividing the guidance position between them and assigning them each three classes. (Petitioner's Exhibit P) Mr. Green divided the counselor duties between Respondent and Ms. Mandell based on budgetary considerations. That is, Attucks could not afford three guidance counselors and instead of terminating one instructional employee, the guidance counselor assignments were divided. (TP Volume 1, pp. 204 - 205) On November 3, 1982, Mr. Green began, via a memo, to change Respondent from a guidance position to a teaching position reciting in the memo that the change was based on a report from Rod Sasse, an educational guidance specialist for the Petitioner. Mr. Sasse conducted a study of the Attucks Guidance Department and determined that the Department needed to be restructured. He determined that two full-time counselors were more effective than one full-time and two part- time guidance counselors. Thus, Respondent was assigned a teaching position without any counseling duties. Respondent has refused to perform her assigned duties by Mr. Taft Green citing, inter alia, that the course materials provided her were inadequate or incomplete; that she was not educationally trained and therefore unqualified to teach the assigned duties; that she received no help or assistance from other instructional employees at Attucks and that she was not interested in taking the needed steps to either become qualified or otherwise competent to teach the assigned social studies and orientation classes. Prior to her November 10, 1982 assignment by principal Taft Green, Respondent was afforded one (1) week to prepare for the assigned classes. Additionally, she was given two TDA's (temporary duty assignments) to prepare for the social studies classes. Additionally, Respondent received a course syllabus and other material from other faculty and staff and offers of help from supervisory employees. (Testimony of Green; Carole Fischer, Social Studies Department Head; Mark Thomas, author of the course guide for middle school orientation and Dr. Benjamin Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel) Respondent made repeated statements, oral and written, to students, other instructional employees, supervisors, principal Green and the press evidencing her lack of interest in performing the assigned duties of teaching social studies and/or orientation. Respondent also cited as one of the reasons of her inability to teach the assigned classes was due to the fact that her students were not functioning at the same level of achievement and therefore it was impossible for her to teach students who are functioning at different progress levels. It is hereby found that it is indeed normal for students to function at varying progress levels and that teachers who are at all interested in performing the duties of an instructional employee, readily adjust to the varying progress levels of students and welcome the challenge of such an adjustment. As stated, Respondent repeatedly refused to perform her assigned duties as an instructional employee for the orientation and social studies classes. Based on this refusal to teach, Respondent assigned 148 out of 150 students a grade of incomplete or "I." Respondent was repeatedly directed to provide grades for her students by principal Green including written demands on January 19, 20, 21 and 25, 1983. On the last two demands on January 21 and 25, 1983, Respondent was further advised that her failure to assign grades to students would be regarded as gross insubordination. Respondent would not and, in fact, refused to teach her students any of the subject areas to which she was assigned by principal Taft Green. A typical day spent in the Respondent's classroom consisted primarily of the students either performing independent work which usually was in the form of preparing for other classes or doing homework which was assigned by other instructional staff or in the case of the orientation class, students would watch programs such as "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show." Respondent performed some minimal teaching including map and globe assignments. However, in the normal day, Respondent would permit students to perform either independent work or repeatedly view film strips. As a result of such repetition, students became bored. A number of Respondent's students expressed a desire to learn skills in the social studies classes which they were attending. It is also found that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been severely damaged due to the wide notoriety that this case has received, the public statements and/or admissions by the Respondent denoting her lack of interest in teaching the assigned classes and the expressed concern of other staff and parents concerned about entrusting their children to Respondent's class in view of her admitted lack of care and disregard for the educational and social welfare of the students in her class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County, enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, from employment with the Broward County school system. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Deborah Green, hold Florida teaching certificate 586445, covering the areas of Math, Elementary Education and Educational Leadership. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. During the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent was a teacher in the Pinellas County Schools GOALS program at Dixie Hollins High School. GOALS stands for Graduation Options - Alternative to Leaving School. It is a drop-out prevention program. Although the evidence did not describe the GOALS program in detail, the evidence suggests that GOALS teachers may be in the position of having to change some of the rules of regular education in order to keep students from dropping out and yet may still be subject to criticism for not conforming to the rules of regular education. Put another way, there appears to be the potential for some of the priorities of the GOALS program to be inconsistent with some of the priorities of regular education, and it was not clear from the evidence how GOALS teachers are supposed to balance the competing interests. One of the Respondent's GOALS students in history class during the 1991/1992 school year was Andrew Patrick. By definition, as a GOALS student, he was at risk to drop out when he entered the program. He also was a poor student, especially in math. Emotionally, Patrick seemed to suffer from an abnormally strong need to feel popular while at the same time failing to realize that the results of his efforts to be popular generally were the opposite of what he intended. After letting down his guard and allowing himself to be friendly and civil with the Respondent, he soon came to like her personally. At the same time, he seemed to sense (probably correctly) that a personal relationship with the Respondent, who was a very popular teacher, could make him popular by association. Over time, a close teacher-student relationship developed between the Respondent and Patrick. The Respondent was able to use this relationship to further her goal of keeping Patrick interested in school. In addition, the Respondent discovered that Patrick became more interested in school the more he was allowed to help the Respondent in the classroom. As a means of legitimate "positive stroking," the Respondent gave Patrick more and more responsibilities in her classroom and praised him for carrying them out successfully. Over time, Patrick developed an adolescent crush on the Respondent. He became unusually interested in her and in the details of her personal life. He learned, accidentally at first, that the Respondent was dating a man named Michael Miller, who was married and who was the principal of another Pinellas County high school. He questioned her repeatedly about her relationship with Miller and also pestered the Respondent's adopted daughter, who also was in the GOALS program, for information about the Respondent and her personal life. (Actually, the girl was the daughter of a close friend of the Respondent. The Respondent and her friend helped each other raise their children. Both families lived in the Respondent's home, and the Respondent referred to the girl as her daughter.) In addition, for a student, he bought her relatively expensive gifts; he also bought her gifts more frequently than the other students. The Respondent did little to discourage Patrick's obvious crush on her. Instead, she exploited it, in part in furtherance of her objectives as his GOALS teacher but also, during the 1992/1993 school year, in part for her benefit. During the 1992/1993 school year, Patrick's role in the Respondent's pre-algebra classroom expanded to what seemed to be practically the Respondent's personal assistant. The Respondent gave Patrick a desk at the front of the classroom near her teacher desk, facing the students, such as a teaching assistant might have. The Respondent had Patrick prepare weekly GOALS progress reports for her to fill out for each student. (He wrote her name in the appropriate blank, but it was not proven that the blank necessarily called for her signature or initials, as opposed to just her identity as teacher.) The Respondent also had Patrick maintain the hall passes for her use. When a student needed a hall pass, she referred the student to Patrick to get one. Patrick would fill out the hall pass and give it to the student. Usually, the hall pass required the Respondent's signature but, on occasion, Patrick forged the Respondent's signature. When the Respondent was made aware that Patrick had forged her signature, she admonished him not to, but she did not monitor very closely or control him very well. The Respondent also had Patrick complete daily attendance slips to be picked up by a runner from the administrative offices. The Respondent also had Patrick use an answer key to grade daily class assignments and some quizzes for his class and other classes she taught and had him enter the grades in a grade book. (There also was one other student who used an answer key to grade some daily class assignments and some quizzes and enter the grades in a grade book for the Respondent, but the other student was not nearly as heavily involved in these activities as Patrick.) It is not clear from the evidence whether Patrick and the other student entered the daily class assignment and quiz grades in the Respondent's official class grade book or in one of the other grade books that the Respondent maintained for other purposes. Patrick usually performed tasks for the Respondent during math class, but sometimes (as the Respondent was aware) he left other academic classes during the school day to the Respondent's classroom to perform tasks for her. Patrick rarely took quizzes himself. The Respondent had determined that Patrick did not test well, and she devised alternative means of measuring his progress in her classroom. Often, Patrick didn't even know when the Respondent was evaluating and grading what he was doing for her in the classroom. Patrick relished his role as the Respondent's assistant, applied himself to it and did a very good job in the role. He obviously tried very hard to please the Respondent, and she gave Patrick credit for his effort and performance. But it seems questionable how the Respondent fairly and accurately could have evaluated and graded Patrick's progress, especially in a class like pre-algebra, based on his performance in the tasks she was assigning him to do for her in the classroom. On the other hand, what she was doing kept Patrick in school, and there was no evidence that the general approach was incorrect in the context of a GOALS program pre-algebra class. During the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent was under stress at least in part due to her relationship with Miller. It probably comforted her to an extent to allow Patrick to draw her into discussions about subjects such as her relationship with Miller. She stopped short of discussing the intimate details of the relationship, but in some respects Patrick could use his imagination to fill in the blanks. Later in the fall, the Respondent had to deal with the additional stress of having to decide whether to accept an offer of marriage from a well-to-do friend from Texas. She freely discussed her dilemma with Patrick. By January, 1993, the Respondent was having serious difficulty handling the stress and began to suffer physical symptoms. She accepted the advice of her chiropractor, who was treating the physical symptoms of her stress, to take a medical leave of absence. Her application for leave was approved through June 11, 1993, and she began her leave on January 27, 1993. When Patrick inquired about the Respondent's absence from school, and was told that she was gone and probably would not be back, he became hysterical. He went to the principal's office and angrily accused the principal of getting rid of the Respondent because of her relationship with Miller (which the principal knew nothing about) because he was confidant that his (Patrick's) relationship with the Respondent was much too close for her to have left voluntarily without consulting with him. He described the nature of their relationship. When the principal denied that he had anything to do with it, Patrick began to blame himself, saying that he had encouraged the Respondent to drop her relationship with Miller and marry the friend from Texas. The principal calmed Patrick down and had him sent home. That evening, Patrick's mother telephoned the principal to complain about the Respondent. She had talked to her son and obtained new information from him about his relationship with the Respondent and his role in her classroom. After receiving the mother's telephone call, the principal telephoned the Respondent to inform her that a student had made serious allegations about her and that the student's mother had called him very upset. He would not tell her what the allegations were but told her the name of the student. The Respondent declined to talk about it further over the telephone but readily agreed to meet with the principal, Patrick and his mother the next day at 1:00 p.m. The Respondent also agreed to write Patrick and his mother to explain that she was on medical leave of absence. It was not proven that the principal told the Respondent not to talk to Patrick before their meeting the next day. On the morning of the next day, the Respondent telephoned the school office to have Patrick paged to speak to her. The office assistant told her that she only could do so if it was an emergency. The Respondent told her that it was. The Respondent spoke with Patrick for about ten minutes. She asked Patrick what he had said to the principal. When he told her, she admonished him that his statements had put her at risk of losing her job and that he had better "get his story straight." He correctly interpreted her to mean that she wanted him to recant his statements in order to protect her and her job. At the meeting at 1:00 p.m., Patrick recanted his earlier statements and claimed that his mother had blown everything out of proportion. It was improper for the Respondent to use Patrick (and, to a lesser extent, the other student), as she did during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year, as a personal assistant to grade class papers for her and enter grades in grade books for her. Her practice gave Patrick improper access to too many students' grades on papers and quizzes. It also tended to create an unhealthy appearance of favoritism. Although it was not proven that a certain amount of special treatment for good behavior and effort would be inappropriate especially in the context of a GOALS class, the Respondent went overboard when it came to Patrick.) It was improper for the Respondent to engage in the close personal relationship that developed between her and Patrick during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year. It became harmful to the learning environment, it changed the relationship from a teacher-student relationship to a friend-friend relationship, and it tended to create an unhealthy appearance of favoritism. Encouraging Patrick to lie for the Respondent in order to protect her job (and Miller's reputation) exposed him to conditions harmful to his learning and mental and emotional health and safety. The Respondent exploited her relationship with Patrick for personal gain or advantage during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year in that she used him improperly as her personal assistant. Except for the incidents that were the subject matter of this case, the Petitioner has a fine record as a teacher. In fact, at the time she took her medical leave of absence, she was about to be interviewed as part of the School Board's Targeted Selection Process for recruiting and training qualified teachers for promotion to a managerial position. The Respondent's inappropriate conduct during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year resulted from the exercise of poor judgment in the degree to which she varied from the conduct expected of a teacher in regular education while teaching in the GOALS program. The Respondent's poor judgment may have resulted in part from the debilitating personal stress from which she was suffering and which, actually on the eve of her Targeted Selection interview, required her to take a medical leave of absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order suspending the Respondent for 45 days based on the charges that have been proven in this case. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1629 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that either graded test papers or that test grades were entered or that grades were entered in the Respondent's official grade book. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (She gave them A's in part for the work they did for her, rather than solely for scores earned on tests and quizzes administered to the other students.) Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that a "sexual relationship" with the Texan was discussed. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as not proven that she did not agree to meet until after talking to the student. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part as conclusion of law. Also, rejected as not proven that it is improper for a teacher to have a student grade another student's daily class assignments and homework assignments for immediate feedback. (This usually is done by exchanging papers in class.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. (The extensive use of Patrick as if he were the Respondent's personal assistant was improper.) Rejected as not proven as to Shannon. Accepted and incorporated as to Patrick. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (It was not proven that the Respondent allowed Patrick to forge her signature to hall passes.) Rejected as not proven in the context of the GOALS program. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven as to Shannon. Accepted and incorporated as to Patrick. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (For purposes of these rulings, consecutive numbers have been assigned to the unnumbered paragraphs of proposed findings of fact in the Respondent's proposed recommended order.) 1. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 2.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that the Respondent just told Patrick to "tell the truth." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Generally accepted but subordinate, some to facts contrary to those found. The documents in evidence reflect that the Respondent did give quizzes in her GOALS classes. And, while evaluators who observed her classrooms saw students grading class assignments, the evidence was not clear that they were aware of the extent of Patrick's role as the Respondent's personal assistant. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence. But the rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7.-8. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as to Patrick as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. The rest is rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Fourth sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. The rest is rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Suite 100 1408 North Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire 501 First Avenue North Suite 600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Marguerite Longoria Robinson, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 E. 7th Avenue, Suite 301 P. O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
