The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined in accordance with Sections 231.262(6) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, for alleged acts of misconduct as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint, dated May 19, 1993, in violation of Sections 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and the Florida Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 454394, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Junior High School Science, and Administration and Supervision, which is valid through June 30, 1994. At all times pertinent to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Mary Elementary School in the Seminole County School District. On or about March 14, 1988, Respondent was arrested in Volusia County, Florida, and charged with Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority and Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child. A Felony Arrest Warrant for Respondent was issued by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, dated March 11, 1988. An Information was thereupon filed against Respondent in the case of State of Florida v. Larry O. Williams, Case No. 88-17776, and it charged Respondent with two (2) offenses: Count I: Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority, and Count II: Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child. The state issued a Nolle Prosequi to the charge of Sexual Activity with a Child. Respondent entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to the lesser included charge in Count II of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child, a third degree felony. On or about April 16, 1990, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child by the circuit court. He was sentenced to serve three (3) years probation, pay $41.00 per month for the cost of supervision, pay $225.00 in court costs and fines, and successfully complete sexual offender counseling. He was also ordered to have no further contact with the victim or any other individuals involved in the case. Detective Diana Floyd, with the Edgewater Police Department, was one of the detectives who assisted in the investigation of Respondent. The victim of the criminal activity by Respondent was Kristina Adkins. Detective Diana Floyd interviewed Kristina Adkins as part of her investigation on March 9, 1988. or about March 15, 1988, the Respondent was suspended with pay by the Seminole County Superintendent of Schools, Robert W. Hughes. On or about March 24, 1988, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the School Board of Seminole County. Respondent was on an annual contract, and his contract called for a renewal each year. The School Board, on or about March 24, 1988, decided not to renew his contract for the following school year. During the 1987-1988 school year, Naomi Whitker was a fifth grade student at Lake Mary Elementary School, and was frequently in Respondent's classroom because her best friend, Cristie Braddy, was a student in Respondent's class. At that time, Naomi Whitker was ten years of age. Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy would regularly assist in Respondent's classroom, generally after school. On a regular basis, Respondent would touch Naomi Whitker's buttocks and hug her while she was in his classroom. This occurred during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School. The student would put her arms around Respondent's waist, and he would put his hands around her back and then move them slowly down until he touched her buttocks. Naomi Whitker did not think that it was right for a teacher to touch her in that way, and she felt uncomfortable and confused. A similar incident occurred when Respondent hugged Naomi and grabbed her buttocks as he was dropping the two girls off after taking them to dance class. On one occasion in late February or early March, 1988, Naomi was hanging up something on Respondent's classroom wall, and was standing on a chair. Respondent came over, reached under her clothing, and put his hands on her stomach while he was holding her. As a result of this touching of Naomi's stomach, she turned and ran out of the class. She felt afraid, angry, and embarrassed. She did not tell him to stop, but was so afraid that she ran out of the room. On another occasion, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker, Cristie Braddy, and another girl out during the 1987-1988 school year to Monday night skate night, and to Show Biz Pizza thereafter. Respondent paid for the entire evening. As they were driving Respondent asked Cristie if she had any underwear on. Respondent also told Cristie that he was not wearing any underwear either. Cristie Braddy, a student in Respondent's fifth grade class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, and best friend of Naomi Whitker at that time, was touched by Respondent. He would rub Cristie's back and stomach and then go down to her buttocks. He would also rub her shoulders. Respondent also touched Cristie Braddy outside of the classroom, specifically at Show Biz Pizza, where he touched her back and shoulders. Also on a school sponsored camping trip he rubbed Cristie Braddy and touched her on the outside of her clothes, when he touched her back and shoulders, but on the inside when he touched her stomach. The touching of Cristie Braddy by Respondent occurred during the entire 1987-1988 school year, and was not an isolated incident. It occurred on a daily basis. On separate occasions, Respondent asked Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to come over to his apartment, and help clean it. However, they declined. On another occasion, Respondent gave Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy a silver ring which said "love" on it. In handing the ring to Naomi and Cristie, Respondent said that he wanted them to have it because "I love you". Also during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to the beach or to the mall with him, but they did not go with him. Respondent made inappropriate comments to students in his classroom. For example, he would talk about how he and his wife got divorced because she would not have sex with him. He would also look at Naomi, and say that she needed to shave her legs, or that she was in a bad mood because she was beginning her period. He would also ask about whether the girls were kissing boys. On another occasion in Respondent's fifth grade classroom at Lake Mary Elementary School, Cristie Braddy was sitting in the teacher's chair. Respondent came up from behind her and sat on the chair directly behind her with his legs spread around her. Cristie Braddy quickly jumped out of the chair and went to a different part of the room. Monica Graham, a student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, was also touched by Respondent. Respondent touched Monica Graham inappropriately on the shoulders and buttocks on the outside of her clothing, and on one occasion, he pinched her buttocks. Monica Graham, as a result of the touching by Respondent, felt weird and embarrassed because he did it to her in front of the other students. She was also angry and hurt by Respondent touching her. On the same camping trip that Christie Braddy and Monica Graham attended, Respondent, who was a chaperon, told the girls on the camping trip that if they got scared at night, they could come sleep in his tent. Respondent invited Monica Graham to go swimming at his house, and one night asked if she wanted to come over and eat dinner with him. Monica Graham did not go because she told her parents, and they said it was inappropriate. Respondent gave Monica Graham his home phone number. He told Monica it was for help in homework, but when she called, he did not talk about homework. Tiffany Gormly, a fifth grade student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary school class at Lake Mary Elementary School during the 1987-1988 school year, was touched by Respondent. Respondent rubbed her shoulders, and tried to hold her hand. When Respondent tried to hold Tiffany Gormly's hand, she kicked him. As a result of Respondent's touching Tiffany Gormly, she felt uncomfortable and embarrassed. There were other students in front of her when Respondent rubbed her shoulders. She was angry, and told Respondent to stop. Respondent also invited Tiffany Gormly to come to his apartment and go swimming. It bothered her, and she did not go. On occasion, Respondent would look under the long table where students sat, as they watched movies in his classroom, and would try to look up the dresses of the girls.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Larry O. Williams is not guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; but is guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes, for having been convicted of a felony; and is guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, due to his inappropriate touching and conduct with four of his students. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for the above violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2215 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 114, 116, 117. Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43. Rejected as irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 7(in part), 8 (in part), 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 55, 63, 67, 70, 71, 77, 78, 79, 90, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire BOND & BOYD, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry O. Williams 403 North Monroe Street Versailles, Missouri 65084 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for a Florida Educator's Certificate. On April 17, 2004, at the Kendall campus of Miami-Dade Community College (College), Petitioner sat for the general knowledge portion of the certification examination (Test), which included an essay question. In advance of the Test, Petitioner was informed in writing of, among other things, the following: In its continuing effort to assure fairness and equity in examination administration conditions, the Florida Department of Education is putting into written form those activities that have been, and continue to be, regarded as cheating by, or on behalf of, an examinee. The specific items represent cheating activities encountered throughout the history of the Department's assessment programs, but do not preclude the Department from appropriate action in cases of cheating that do not fall under a specific item. These guidelines are applicable to the Florida Teacher Certification Examinations program . . . . Section 1 defines those behaviors that constitute cheating. Section 2 lists materials, equipment and other aids that examinees are prohibited from using during the examination. . . . Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: * * * c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. * * * Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: . . . papers of any kind, including scratch paper; . . . * * * Annette Lorenzo, a College employee, was the "room supervisor" in the room in which Petitioner took the Test. Ms. Lorenzo was assisted by another College employee, Gladys Manrique, "who was "working as a proctor" in the room. When Petitioner arrived in the room the morning of the Test, she was checked in by Ms. Lorenzo, who assigned her a seat near the front of the room. Upon being told of her seat assignment, Petitioner "pointed to the last seat of the last row" and asked if she could sit there instead. Ms. Lorenzo "said, 'Okay, no problem,' and [Petitioner] went and sat down in that seat." After "checking everybody in," Ms. Lorenzo read "instructions for the exam" to the examinees (including "go[ing] through all the guidelines on what constitute[d] cheating, as well as what [was] and [was] not allowed in the room"), and, with Ms. Manrique's help, handed out the testing materials. Testing then began (at approximately 8:45 a.m.). Ms. Lorenzo and Ms. Manrique "walk[ed] around the room, up and down the aisles," to "mak[e] sure that nobody [was] cheating or using anything [prohibited]" while the test was being administered. As she was doing so, during the essay portion of the Test, Ms. Lorenzo noticed Petitioner periodically "looking into her [cupped] left hand [which was positioned on the desk in front of her, just above her answer booklet, and appeared to contain tissues] while she was writing" in the booklet with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo observed Petitioner's engaging in this suspicious conduct for "[a]t least ten minutes." During this time, Ms. Lorenzo was "staring at [Petitioner], watching her very closely." When she eventually made eye contact with Ms. Lorenzo, Petitioner moved her hands towards her face and "made a noise like she was blowing her noise." She then closed her left hand into a fist and continued writing with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo advised Ms. Manrique that she suspected that "something [was] going on" with Petitioner, and she asked Ms. Manrique to "take a look." Ms. Manrique observed Petitioner for approximately five minutes, after which she reported back to Ms. Lorenzo that she "believe[d] there [was] something going on as well." Ms. Lorenzo then "walked to the back of the room and stood to the right of Petitioner." From her vantage point, Ms. Lorenzo noticed "sticking out the bottom of [Petitioner's left] hand," which was "still in a fist," not only tissues, but "paper with some writing on it." Upon making this observation, Ms. Lorenzo asked Petitioner to show her "everything [Petitioner] had in her hand."3 Petitioner's immediate response was to "[u]s[e] her right hand [to] grab[] the tissues out of her left hand," which she then quickly closed into a fist again. She gave the tissues she had transferred from her left to right hand to Ms. Lorenzo, explaining that she had "just tissues" and nothing else. Ms. Lorenzo, however, knew otherwise and demanded that Petitioner open her left hand. Petitioner complied, revealing the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had seen "sticking out" of the hand when it was clenched. The paper was the size of a "small note [pad] sheet." It was crumpled from being held tightly by Petitioner. On the paper was a complete essay that that Petitioner had written before entering the examination room. The essay was entitled, "A Place to Visit: San Antonio Park."4 Ms. Lorenzo took the paper, as well as Petitioner's testing materials, including Petitioner's answer booklet, from Petitioner. In her answer booklet, Petitioner had written an essay about San Antonio Park, substantial portions of which were identical, word for word, to what was on the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had confiscated from Petitioner's left hand. Petitioner had knowingly brought this paper into the examination room with the intent to use it as an aid in answering the essay question on the general knowledge portion of the Test,5 and she carried out this intent once the Test began.6 As Petitioner started to "g[e]t a little bit loud," Ms. Lorenzo escorted her from the room and took her to see Juan Meza, the College's testing director.7 On the way to Mr. Meza's office, Petitioner insisted that she had not cheated and "begg[ed] [Ms. Lorenzo] to let her go finish the exam." Ms. Lorenzo responded that Petitioner's "test [was] over for today." After Ms. Lorenzo had told Mr. Meza that she had "found [Petitioner] cheating," Mr. Meza spoke to Petitioner and told her that she could not "continue taking the test" because she had been caught cheating. Petitioner denied to Mr. Meza that she had been cheating. Mr. Meza, in turn, informed Petitioner that he would send an "irregularity report" to the Department and that the Department would "make [a] decision" as to whether she had been cheating and then "contact her to let her know what [was] going on." As promised, on or about April 19, 2004, Mr. Meza sent an "irregularity report" to the Department (along with the materials that Ms. Lorenzo had taken from Petitioner in the examination room). On April 26, 2004, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioner: This letter is in response to information I have received from staff at Miami Dade College, Kendall campus confirming that you failed to follow testing procedures during the administration of the General Knowledge Test on April 17, 2004. Along with the admission ticket you received for the examination, you received a letter that outlines the State's policy on cheating. Section 1 (c) and (f) and Section 2 state the following: "Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: Timex Data Link™ wrist watch; electronic pager; cellular telephone; pocket organizer; electronic writing pen or pen-input device; any electronic device with an alphabetic keyboard; dictionary or other books; ruler; papers of any kind, including scratch paper; slide rule; protractor; compass; laptop computer; calculator watch, or calculator except those calculators provided at the test center for the following tests: Mathematics 6-12, the math portion of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum (MGIC), Middle Grades Mathematics 5-9, Chemistry 6-12, Physics 6-12, and the math subtests of the General Knowledge Test." As a result of your failure to abide by this policy, the score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test under your name and Social Security number . . . for the April 17, 2004, test administration has been invalidated. By copy of this letter, I am also informing Professional Practices Services and the Bureau of Educator Certification of this decision. This decision means that you have yet to fulfill the State's requirements for a passing score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test. You are entitled to dispute this decision through legal administrative procedures. If you wish to do so, you must send a written request for an administrative hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The written request must be postmarked within twenty (20) calendar days of the date you receive this letter and submitted to the following address: . . . . If you fail to submit the written request within the specified time period, you will have waived the opportunity to contest the decision through administrative proceedings, and the score invalidation decision will be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Petitioner responded by sending a letter to the Department, which read (verbatim) as follows: I have received your letter about the problem I had the day of test. I'm so sorry about the day. In 20 years of being a teacher, I never had that kind of problem. That day I had a bad cold and when I finished my test, the only thing that I had to do was to check it, but I was coughing badly and I took a napkin that was inside my bag on the floor, but together with the napkin came out a paper. I took both in my hand. I put my hand up, because I knew that if the teacher saw me in this moment I got in trouble, but it was too late. The teacher came to me, asked for the paper and the napkin and without I could explain anything. She took to the supervisor and explained everything to him. He told he had to follow the rules, then he had to report the incident. So I think I should have an opportunity to do my tests again. The Commissioner subsequently notified Petitioner that her application for certification was being denied because she had "attempted to cheat" on the essay portion of Test "by referring to a complete essay she had in her possession when she entered the room." This denial of Petitioner's application for certification is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order sustaining the denial of Petitioner's application for certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Professional Education Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Subtest") of the Florida Teacher Certification Examination tests the examinees' mastery and knowledge of general teaching methods and strategies. It is offered four times a year. The Subtest consists of approximately 130 to 135 multiple choice questions (each with four choices from which the examinees must choose the correct answer). The questions are printed in a question booklet. There is a separate answer sheet on which examinees record their answers to these questions by blackening, with a pencil, the appropriate bubble. Examinees are given two and a half hours to complete the Subtest. The Subtest is a criterion referenced test as opposed to a norm referenced test. To pass the Subtest, an examinee must attain a scaled score of 200. The Subtest is administered by the Office of Instructional Resources of the University of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "OIR") pursuant to a contract that OIR has with the Department. Dr. Sue Legg is the head of OIR. Pat Dovall is one of her assistants. Among OIR's responsibilities is the development, in cooperation with the Department, of a Test Administration Manual for the Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") to guide and assist test site administrators, test room supervisors and test room proctors in discharging their duties at the test administration sites. The Manual developed by OIR provides that the following procedures should be followed in the seating of examinees: 3. Procedures for Seating of Examinees Seat examinees in the same seat they used for the morning session. For retake candidates testing only in the afternoon, follow the procedures below. Place a test book receipt card on each desk where an examinee will sit. Be certain you and your assistants have unimpeded access to every examinee. Assign examinee to a specific row or column of chairs. DO NOT ALLOW EXAMINEES TO SELECT THEIR OWN SEATING POSITIONS. Arrange seating in a manner which will separate those who are obviously acquainted. Seat examinees so they cannot see their neighbors' responses or exchange information. Fill in appropriate chairs in each row or column in order to expedite distribution and collection of test materials. Place left handed examinees in a separate row or in the last seat or each row of right-handed examinees. If use of chairs with right-handed tablet arms cannot be avoided, seat left-handed examinees with vacant chairs to their left for use as writing surfaces. If an examinee objects to his seating assign- ment, the room supervisor should make every attempt to work out a satisfactory solution. If this is not possible, the center supervisor should discuss the problem with the examinee. 4. Seating Arrangements Level Seating Arrangements: Seat examinees directly behind one another, facing in the same direction. Maintain a three-foot separation. Inclined Seating Arrangements: Maintain a three-foot separation front and rear and side-to-side. With respect to the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," the Manual states the following: Report on the Irregularity Report name social security number test name time by reset watch Misconduct Defined as any of the following: creating a disturbance; giving or receiving help; using notes, books, calculators; removing test materials or notes from the testing room; attempting to take a test for someone else. ANY EXAMINEE MAY BE DISMISSED WHO IS ENGAGING IN ANY MISCONDUCT AS DEFINED ABOVE: Two witnesses (or more) must observe the misconduct. The test center supervisor or room supervisor must be one of the witnesses. A full written report, signed by all witnesses, must be sent to OIR immediately. Cheating Defined as an examinee giving or receiving assistance during a testing period. Dismiss examinee from the testing areas if either of the above occurs. Examinee may not return. Dismiss examinee who repeatedly, after warning, continues to work on a test after time has elapsed. Dismiss examinee who uses prohibited aids. Include the following on the Irregularity Report: Examinee's identification Type of "cheating" and details of activity Warnings given Time on the reset watch Test section Degree of certainty Name of persons confirming the information Information given to the examinee at the time of the incident Attach examinee's answer folder to the Irregularity Report and return to OIR. Suspected Cheating Record name of examinee suspected. Record name of persons from whom you suspect the examinee was copying. Warn the examinee that you suspect cheating. Move examinee to provide further separation. Disturbances Defined as behavior of examinee during testing that disturbs others; loud noises or other conditions that lead to complaints by the examinees. Individual disruptive behavior Warn examinee that dismissal will result if behavior continues. Report the incident on the Irregularity Report. Outside disturbance Stop test. Have examinees close test books with answer folders inserted. Note time on the reset watch. Adjust time when test is resumed to ensure a full test period. OIR is also responsible for the selection of test administration sites, subject to the approval of the Department. The North Campus of Broward Community College (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") was selected by OIR and approved by the Department as one of the test administration sites for the August 5, 1995, Subtest. For the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC, Dotlyn Lowe was the OIR- slected test site administrator, Greta Jackson was the test room supervisor, and Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan were the test room proctors. Each had served in similar capacities for prior examinations and, having previously reviewed the Manual, 2/ each was aware of its contents at the time of the administration of the August 5, 1995, Subtest. The August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC was administered in a classroom which had approximately 50 seats arranged in eight or nine rows. Each seat had a right-handed tablet arm for use as a writing surface. Petitioner was one of the approximately 35 examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC. He sat in the last occupied row of seats (in Seat Number 42). 3/ Seated immediately to his left, approximately two to two and half feet away (in Seat Number 41), was another examinee, George Sauers. On various occasions during the Subtest, Petitioner looked at Sauers' answer sheet to see Sauers' answers. 4/ Jackson, Johnson and Cadogan all witnessed Petitioner engage in such conduct. Jackson first noticed such conduct approximately an hour after the Subtest had begun. From her vantage point, she saw that Petitioner, instead of facing straight ahead toward the front of the room, was sitting with his body angled to the left in a position that enabled him to look at Sauers' answer sheet and see Sauers' answers without having to turn his head. 5/ Petitioner's left leg was crossed over his right leg and his left ankle was resting on his right knee. Petitioner had placed his question booklet on his left knee, but he was not looking at the booklet. Rather, his eyes were focused on Sauers' answer sheet. Jackson continued to watch Petitioner for another ten to twenty minutes from various parts of the classroom. During that time, she observed him repeatedly shift his eyes toward Sauers' answer sheet and then mark answers on his own answer sheet. Jackson then asked the two test room proctors, Johnson and Cadogan, to observe Petitioner. Johnson and Cadogan complied with Jackson's request. For the next fifteen to twenty minutes Johnson and Cadogan watched Petitioner and saw him engage in the same conduct that Jackson had observed. They then reported their observations to Jackson. Jackson thereupon consulted the Manual, specifically that portion dealing with the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," to determine what action she should take. Although she was certain that Petitioner had copied answers from Sauers' answer sheet, she was uncertain as to whether the provisions of the Manual relating to "cheating" or those relating to "suspected cheating" applied to such conduct. It was Jackson's understanding that an examinee who copied answers from another examinee's answer sheet was guilty of "cheating," as opposed to "suspected cheating," as those terms were used in the Manual, only if the "copying" examinee was knowingly helped by the examinee from whom he had copied, which did not appear to be the situation in Petitioner's case. Jackson, however, was not sure that this interpretation of the Manual was correct. She therefore dispatched Cadogan to seek guidance from Lowe, the test site administrator. Lowe sent her assistant, Jacqueline Edwards, to speak with Jackson. Edwards and Jackson determined that the provisions of the Manual relating to "suspected cheating" should be followed in dealing with Petitioner's conduct. Petitioner therefore was not removed from the test site. Rather, after being told that he was suspected of cheating, he was asked to change his seat (which he did without any argument) and allowed to remain in the classroom to finish the Subtest. In his new seat, Petitioner sat facing forward and had his test materials in front of him. He made no apparent effort to look at any of his new neighbors' answer sheets. Petitioner handed in his answer sheet before the expiration of the two and a half hours the examinees were given to finish the Subtest. Later that same day, following the administration of the Subtest, Jackson prepared and submitted a written irregularity report concerning Petitioner's "suspected cheating." 6/ Subsequently, on August 10, 1995, and again on August 28, 1995, Jackson sent memoranda to OIR accurately describing the incident. The memoranda were signed not only by Jackson, but also by Johnson and Cadogan, who did so to indicate that the information contained in the memoranda was accurate to the best of their knowledge. The August 28, 1995, memorandum was the most detailed of Jackson's three written statements 7/ concerning the incident. It read as follows: On Saturday, August 5, 1995, during the Professional Education Examination, I observed Mr. Lamothe looking at another examinee's (George Sauers) answer sheet. I observed Mr. Lamothe at his desk with one leg [a]cross the other and his test booklet approxi- mately 1 ft. away from him, resting on his crossed leg. However, Mr. Lamothe's pupils were in the extreme left corner of his eyes, looking onto Mr. Sauers' desk. Mr. Lamothe would then look up and once looked directly at me, pause as though he was thinking and then marked an answer on his answer sheet. I observed this incident, within an hour of the test, over a period of 15-20 minutes[.] I then asked the proctors (Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan) to also watch the examinee. After approximately 15-20 minutes, the proctors confirmed that they also observed Mr. Lamothe cheating. I sent Ms. Cadogan to the Test Center Supervisor, Dotlyn Lowe, for advice. Mr. Lamothe was not dismissed from test room, due to our interpretation of the Test Manual instructions on page 14, number 3 (that defines cheating as giving or receiving assistance, which was not the case). Therefore, we preceded as per the Test Manual instructions on page 15, number 4. I then informed Mr. Lamothe that he was observed/suspected of cheating and asked him to change his seat. Mr. Lamothe got his belongings together and moved to the front of the room. Mr. Lamothe finished his exam without further incident. Mr. Lamothe was sitting in the back of the room in Seat Number 42 and Mr. Sauers was sitting to Mr. Lamothe's left in Seat Number 41. Petitioner's scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest was 215. Sauers scored a 229. The mean scaled score of the 2478 examinees taking the August 5, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 215.32. Of these 2478 examinees, 94.2 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. 8/ 33. After reviewing Jackson's August 5, 1995, irregularity report and her August 10, 1995, and August 28, 1995, memoranda, 9/ Dr. Loewe consulted with his supervisor, Dr. Thomas Fisher. Dr. Loewe and Dr. Fisher determined, based on the information provided in these documents, that Petitioner's score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest should be invalidated. By letter dated September 18, 1995, Dr. Loewe informed Petitioner of this determination. The letter read as follows: This letter is in reference to your score on the August 5, 1995 Florida Teacher Certification Examination Professional Education test adminis- tration. At that administration test proctors witnessed you repeatedly looking at the answer document of another examinee. This constitutes cheating. As a result your score will not count and no score report will be mailed. 10/ If you dispute the material facts on which this decision is based, you may request a formal hearing by submitting a written request within 20 days of the date of this letter to: Dr. Thomas Fisher Administrator, Student Assessment Services Suite 701, Florida Education Center Florida Department of Educatio Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Failure to timely request a hearing constitutes waiver of administrative proceedings, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. If you wish to complete the teacher certification testing requirements you will need to register for and retake the Professional Education test at a scheduled administration. In response to Dr. Loewe's letter, Petitioner wrote the following letter, dated to September 28, 1995, to Dr. Fisher: This letter is in response to the memo that was sent to me on Septemb[er] 18, 1995 in regard to looking at the answer sheet of another examinee. I am appalled by these allegations. I spent several months studying for this exam and did not expect a response such as this (only a positive one). I am most definitely disputing these allegations. I request a formal hearing as soon as possible. Please send me further information on a time and place so I will be able to resolve this issue. A comparison of Petitioner's answers with those given by Sauers and the other examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest lends further support to the conclusion that Petitioner cheated on the examination, as alleged in Dr. Loewe's September 18, 1995, letter to Petitioner. Petitioner answered 37 of the 132 questions on the August 5, 1995, Subtest incorrectly. Sauers answered 23 of the 132 questions incorrectly. Twenty-one of the questions Petitioner answered incorrectly, Sauers also answered incorrectly. Petitioner and Sauers chose the identical incorrect response on 16 of the 21 questions they both answered incorrectly. This exceeds what would be expected based on random chance. On 11 of these 16 questions where Petitioner and Sauers selected the same incorrect answer, their answer was different than the answer most of the examinees selected. This is highly unusual. For example, on Question 71, 77 percent of the 2478 examinees chose "C," which was the correct answer. Petitioner and Sauers both selected "A," a choice made by only 5 percent of the 2478 examinees. Petitioner took the Subtest again, for the fifth time, on October 28, 1995. In addition to having taken the Subtest in August of 1995, he had also previously taken the Subtest in April of 1994, August of 1994, and April of 1995. On the April, 1994; August, 1994; and April, 1995 Subtests he had received failing scaled scores of 192, 199 and 194, respectively. On the October 28, 1995, Subtest, Petitioner received a failing scaled score of 198. The mean scaled score of the 1744 examinees taking the October 28, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 213.11. Of these 1744 examinees, 95.4 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. Petitioner was among the 81 examinees who took the Subtest on both August 5, 1995, and October 28, 1995. Of these 81 examinees, 67 scored higher on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such an increase is typical. Nine of the 81 examinees scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Of these nine examinees, four scored one point lower, one scored three points lower, two scored four points lower and one scored six points lower. Petitioner was the other examinee who scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest. His scaled score on the October 28, 1995, Subtest was 17 points lower than his scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such a significant decrease in scoring is consistent with his having cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Because Petitioner cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest by copying answers from Sauers' answer sheet, his score on that examination cannot be considered a reliable and accurate indicator of the extent of his mastery and knowledge of the general teaching methods and strategies covered on the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order invalidating the score that Petitioner attained on the August 5, 1995, Subtest because he cheated on the examination by copying answers from the answer sheet of another examinee. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of January, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 19th day of January, 1996.
The Issue The substantive issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondents Florida teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked based upon the allegations of Petitioner's complaint dated June 4, 1987. Respondent has raised various procedural issues in his written documents and in a telephone motion hearing held on November 10, 1987. Those issues include whether he has already surrendered his teaching certificate, whether the investigation was proper and whether the formal hearing was properly scheduled.
Findings Of Fact Based upon a consideration of all evidence properly made part of the record in this proceeding, the following findings are made: David Cunningham is now, and was at all times relevant, certified as an elementary school teacher under State of Florida Certificate No. 468382. The certified copy received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 reveals a date of issue of April 14, 1986 and an expiration date of June 30, 1990. No competent evidence was presented to support Respondent's allegation that the certificate was invalid or otherwise lawfully relinquished or revoked. David Cunningham was employed as an elementary teacher at Caley Elementary School in Orlando, Florida during school year 1983-84, until March 1984, when he was placed on leave without pay for the remainder of the school year. Dynell Harrell was a fifth grade student in Cunningham's reading class during the first semester of 1983-84 at Caley. Dynell was twelve years old at the time. During the second semester of 1983-84, Dynell transferred to another school, but began having contacts with Cunningham outside of the school setting. The two went to amusement parks and to restaurants. On only one occasion they were accompanied by Dynell's siblings. Dynell began spending weekends at Cunningham's house. Cunningham gave him presents of clothes, shoes, and money - - $20 or $30 at a time, for an eventual total of at least $500. On the occasion of the second weekend visit, Cunningham got in bed with Dynell. Later, during the night, he began touching and rubbing the youth and took his clothes off. In response to Dynell's question of what was going on, Cunningham responded with a reminder of their friendship and all the things he had done to benefit him. They engaged in oral sex at that time. After that, the sexual contact was routine on the weekend visits, once or twice a month. Cunningham engaged Dynell in oral and anal sex and gave him vodka and cigarettes. Dynell was afraid to tell anyone as he thought he would lose his friend. He also felt he owed Cunningham a favor. During this time, Dynell's mother noticed a withdrawal of her son from his close relationship with her. She was somewhat suspicious of Cunningham's interest but Dynell denied that Cunningham had ever asked him to do anything that he didn't want to do. She believed him because she felt he would be candid with her. At the beginning of the seventh grade, Dynell went to Illinois to live with his grandmother in Illinois. Cunningham called him on the phone, but his grandmother was suspicious and didn't let Dynell talk. On one occasion, Cunningham stopped at the grandmother's house on his way to North Dakota. The grandmother let Cunningham take Dynell out to eat, but only in the company of Dynell's cousin. Dynell also wanted his cousin to come along as he figured nothing could happen if they were not alone. Cunningham told Dynell he wanted to continue seeing him, but Dynell did not want that and responded that he would be in Chicago and would not be able to see Cunningham. Dynell has had no further contact with Cunningham, even after the youth's return to Florida in eighth grade. Dynell has received mental health counseling to help him deal with the relationship with Cunningham. Dynell has been reluctant to associate along with male students and adult males, and refused to participate in his church's Big Brother program unless one of his friends is able to accompany him. John Hawco, administrator of Employee Relations for the Orange County School Board, would not recommend that Cunningham ever be employed in any position in which he would be exposed to children. His effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously impaired by his conduct toward his former student. He exploited his professional relationship with that student in return for personal gain and advantage. By certified letters and through contacts with Cunningham's prior attorney Jerry Whitmore, consultant for the State Department of Education, provided notices to Cunningham regarding the complaint and investigation. Cunningham sent his original teaching certificate to the investigator, stating that he should not be investigated as his certificate was no longer valid. The investigation continued, again with notice to Cunningham. He declined to participate in an informal conference and refused to indicate on the Election of Rights form provided to him which option he chose in response to the complaint: voluntary surrender for permanent revocation, admission of allegations and request for informal hearing, or dispute of allegations and request for a formal hearing by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Instead, he appended a separate statement to the form disputing the allegations and arguing that he was not a valid certificate holder as his certificate was based on a correspondence course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that David Martin Cunningham's Florida teaching certificate be permanently revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire RIGS BY & HOLDER 325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. David Cunningham 8775 20th Street, #921 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 460644, covering the areas of Educational Leadership and Social Science. The license is valid through June 30, 2001. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a substitute teacher at Marathon High School in the Monroe County School District. On or about November 26, 1996, Respondent submitted an application for renewal of a Professional Florida Educator's Certificate to Petitioner's Bureau of Teacher Certification. On the application, Respondent checked "no" in response to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre or had adjudication withheld in a criminal proceeding; or are there any criminal charges now pending against you. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. By indictment of the grand jury convened in Pickens County, South Carolina, on June 22, 1995, Respondent was charged with "Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature" and with the offense of "Disturbing Schools." Respondent pled guilty to the charge of Disturbing Schools and the lesser charge of "Simple Assault and Battery" on March 18, 1996. He received a sentence of a $200 fine and a suspended 90 days jail sentence. On or about October 6, 2000, Petitioner submitted its First Request for Admissions to Respondent. Respondent failed to answer, admit, or deny the truth of the matters asserted in the request; namely, that Respondent submitted the application for renewal of a Professional Florida Educator's Certificate in the manner and form described in paragraph 3, above, and that he pled guilty to the criminal charges described in paragraph 4, above. Pursuant to Rule 1.370(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., the truth of the matters asserted in the request is conclusively established.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Graham, Esquire Graham, Moody & Sox, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Costa Lempesis 1334 Bryjo Place Charleston, South Carolina 29407 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 614 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(c)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, testimony, and stipulated facts, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 834897, covering the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”), and varying exceptionalities, which is valid through June 30, 2023. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (“ESE”) teacher at Wyomina Park Elementary School (“WPES”) in the Marion County School District (“MCSD”). Ms. Miller has served as an elementary education teacher since the 2000-01 school year. Thus, she has a 20-year career with MCSD. From 2008 to 2018, Respondent taught third, fourth, and fifth grades at Reddick Collier Elementary (“Reddick Collier”’). Since she holds certification in ESE, she also taught ESE inclusion students in her general education classrooms. However, she has never taught a classroom of only ESE students. In 2018, Respondent’s value-added model (commonly referred to as VAM) scores rendered her ineligible to continue teaching at Reddick Collier because it was one of the District’s lowest performing schools. As a result, she was involuntarily transferred to WPES. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent was initially assigned to teach students with academic issues, not behavioral issues. The initial assignment was consistent with her experience and previous work with ESE inclusion students. Respondent had maintained certification in ESE so that she could better serve academically low-performing ESE students in a general education inclusion environment. While Respondent had training in an inclusion environment, she did not have training or certification in Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children (“TEACCH”) or Crisis Prevention Intervention de-escalation techniques for use with students with behavioral issues. Ms. Baxley believed that Respondent had been trained to work with children with behavioral issues. After the initial assignment, students were reassigned between Ms. Miller and Patricia Poag. Respondent became responsible for only students with behavioral issues. Some of the students assigned to Respondent had extensive behavioral issues to the extent they required medication treatment. Respondent’s new assignment was a kindergarten through second grade self-contained ESE class of 12 to 13 students. Generally, a self- contained ESE classroom is a group environment with students who have special needs. Respondent’s students required increased supervision, structure, visuals, and very specific direct instruction. Respondent, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Poag testified that the classroom assignment was very “challenging, overwhelming, and distressing.” The new classroom structure included six or seven more students than previously assigned. Respondent had one paraprofessional to assist with supervision of the students. Respondent requested additional staff support, but never received it. In addition to learning to navigate the struggles with the student’s behavioral issues, Respondent was struggling with paperwork. Respondent made the effort to get help with completing necessary documents and learning how to complete IEP’s and behavior plans. She had no experience in completing these documents, or in working with “severe maladaptive behaviors” before being assigned to WPES. Allegations Involving Classroom Management As an ESE instructor, Ms. Miller’s primary responsibility was to ensure compliance with services or accommodations required for ESE students assigned to her classroom. Gina Gazzaniga is the MCSD ESE specialist. Her primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with services/accommodations required for all ESE students. Ms. Gazzaniga visited Respondent’s classroom. While in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Gazzaniga observed students run on tables, throw items, and elope from the classroom unsupervised. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that while students were engaged in this conduct, Respondent did not intervene. Ms. Gazzaniga also testified that when students eloped from the classroom, they would typically go to the Guidance office or the Dean’s office. Ms. Gazzaniga had the Behavior Team (behavior tech, behavior specialist and analyst, and school academic coaches) assist with structure and behavior/classroom management strategies in Respondent’s classroom. The team implemented procedures to help prevent students from eloping. However, Respondent would change the practices the behavior team implemented. Respondent testified that some of the practices put into place were not effective. For example, when tables were lowered, the students increased their jumping from table to table. In addition, the assistance button was not within the reach of the teachers in the classroom. Ms. Gazzaniga’s overall assessment was that she saw “limited improvement, or refusal to follow taught strategies.” Other members of the WPES administration expressed concerns about Respondent’s classroom management. While visiting Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley, along with Kendra Hamby, saw student W.H. pulling the hair of M.D. W.H., a male student, dragged M.D., a female student, by her hair as she screamed. Ms. Baxley testified that she heard Respondent say “stop.” Ms. Baxley then approached the students and removed W.H.’s hand from M.D. so that he would “stop pulling M.D. around like a caveman on the floor.” Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did not intervene to help M.D., but rather “she just stood there.” Ms. Hamby testified that “Ms. Miller was standing there, not intervening, not saying or doing anything. So that was extremely concerning.” On another occasion, while in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley saw students hitting each other with containers. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did nothing to intervene. Respondent testified that she approached the students and instructed them to return the containers. Jennifer Foster was a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom. On one occasion two students were running around the room, fighting, and chasing each other. Ms. Foster tried to “get in the middle to separate them and they both ran behind the big solid wooden table.” When Ms. Foster went in front of the table in an effort to separate them, the two students picked up the table and tossed it over on the side. Ms. Foster was able to move one foot out of the way, but the table landed on her other foot. Ms. Foster testified “I eventually got up and hobbled over to push the panic button and asked for assistance.” Her foot was injured as a result of the incident involving the students. Ms. Foster indicated that Respondent did not assist her. Allegations Involving Failure to Supervise Students In addition to concerns about classroom management, the Administrative Complaint alleged Respondent failed to supervise students. One of those incidents involved K.C. K.C. was one of Respondent’s kindergarten students. He is an ESE student with a medical condition. On September 6, 2018, a teacher informed Assistant Principal Troy Sanford that Respondent’s student, K.C., was found standing at the exit door of a hallway that opens to the playground. Mr. Sanford saw K.C. approaching the exit doors to the playground alone at 11:24 a.m. K.C. stood there alone until 11:29 a.m., at which time the teacher spoke to K.C. After consulting with another teacher, Ms. Hawthorne, about where K.C. belonged, the teacher took him to Respondent’s classroom. Respondent denied allowing K.C. to stand alone in the hallway for several minutes. She testified that while standing at her classroom door, awaiting the arrival of students coming from the restroom, K.C. began to walk from Ms. Davis toward her. This was customary for her students if children needed additional time in the restroom. As K.C. got close to Respondent, L.G.R. began climbing on the top shelf of a bookcase in the classroom. Since their routine was for the students to come into the classroom, she assumed K.C. would follow the customary practice and enter the classroom. Respondent testified that she made a judgment call to turn her attention to L.G.R. to ensure his safety and prevent harm to him. Instead of entering the classroom, K.C. walked down the hallway. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s actions were reasonable. A second incident involved a different student. Two first-grade teachers, Nancy P. Neal and Ireina Hawthorne, were outside on the playground with their students. When recess was over, they were gathering their students and doing a head count to go back inside to their classrooms when they noticed there was “an extra child” in line. The student did not belong in their classroom. The student was nonverbal so they could not determine to which classroom he belonged. Ms. Hawthorne assumed that he belonged in Respondent’s class and took the student to Respondent’s classroom. When Ms. Hawthorne took the student to Respondent’s classroom, Respondent “ushered him into the classroom.” Respondent testified that she was in the hallway, counting her students before going to her classroom. She explained that she had a substitute paraprofessional, Ms. Foster, who did not know all of her students. In addition, this was the first time she had Ms. Foster serve as a substitute. To help remedy the issue regarding the student left outside, Respondent asked her assigned paraprofessional not to take breaks or lunch during recess. Whether Respondent was in her classroom (as stated by Ms. Hawthorne) or in the hallway, the student was left outside without her supervision, which could be harmful to the student’s safety. A third incident related to supervision involved student L.G.R. On October 19, 2019, L.G.R. entered Ms. Gazzaniga’s office and hid under a table. The evidence offered at hearing demonstrated that when the student eloped from the classroom, Respondent immediately followed the student into the guidance office. However, she did not see the L.G.R., so she continued to search for him. A minute or so later, Ms. Gazzaniga saw Respondent walk down the hallway towards the main office. Respondent later learned the student was in the guidance office at the time she initially searched that location. However, Ms. Gazzaniga did not alert Respondent that L.G.R. was in her office. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that she “kept an eye on him while he was there.” After a short time, Ms. Gazzaniga went over to L.G.R. and spoke to him. He came from under the table and went to the doorway of the office. At the same time, Respondent was walking back down the hallway and saw L.G.R. and took him back to her classroom. The credible evidence demonstrates that Respondent made reasonable efforts to locate the student by searching for him immediately after his elopement from the room. DP-3 Assessment On September 10, 2018, Ms. Scott gave Respondent a Developmental Profile Third Edition (“DP-3”) to complete for student A.M.S. Students who are developmentally delayed must have a DP-3 completed for re-evaluation to determine what ESE services need to be continued. A DP-3 is an assessment tool used to evaluate nonverbal or low achieving students that have not reached the cognitive level to take an IQ test. MCSD uses the DP-3 to assess the student’s level of achievement. The DP-3 assesses five areas of development, including the child’s cognitive functioning, physical development, communication skills, social, emotional, and adaptive skills. The assessment is completed by completing a series of questions on whether a student can or cannot perform a particular task. Respondent returned the DP-3 to Ms. Scott on September 25, 2018. Respondent circled items indicating a “yes” response. During the hearing, however, Respondent acknowledged the student would not be capable of performing the tasks. In addition, Ms. Scott did not believe A.M.S. could perform the skills for which Respondent answered yes. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, some of the responses Respondent provided on the DP-3 were inaccurate. Performance Assessments Throughout her career, Respondent had been assessed as progressing or effective related to instructional practice as an educator. For the 2018 informal classroom teacher instructional assessment performed by Ms. Baxley, Ms. Cino, and Mr. Sanford, Ms. Miller was assessed as unsatisfactory in multiple areas.1 However, in the areas of criticism, it was also noted that Ms. Miller was engaged in instruction of students. Interestingly, she was criticized for a child wandering to her desk, and then, criticized for leaving the group of students she was working with to redirect the wandering student. In another instance, the observers were critical of a Positive Behavioral Interventions Support plan but Ms. Miller was never trained in the area of behavioral management. For the 2019 informal classroom teacher evaluation, Ms. Miller was assessed effective in each category, including areas where she was assessed unsatisfactory in 2018. Disciplinary Action at WPES For the first time in her career, Respondent received disciplinary action while working at WPES. On or about September 10, 2018, Respondent was issued an oral reprimand for purported failure to supervise the students assigned to her. On or about September 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for misconduct for purported falsification of documents. On or about October 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for alleged failure to supervise a student assigned to her. On or about November 26, 2018, Respondent was issued Step One progressive discipline for substandard performance due to behavioral concerns in her classroom and failure to report grades. On or about December 11, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Two verbal reprimand regarding substandard performance. 1 In 2018, Ms. Miller was assessed unsatisfactory in the following areas: 2b. establishing a culture for learning, managing student behavior; 3b. using questioning and discussion techniques; and 3c. engaging students in learning. On or about December 18, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Three progressive discipline written reprimand regarding substandard performance. Respondent’s educator certificate has no prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that: Respondent violated the statues and rules as referenced above; Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2021. Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be subject to discipline for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 7, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Raymond J. Agostino, holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 385460, covering the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, and English to Speakers of Other Languages, which is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Agostino was employed as an assistant principal at North Fort Myers High School in the Lee County School District. On the morning of May 16, 2003, at about 5:34 a.m., a 911 emergency call was received by the Cape Coral Police Department. A female voice could be heard screaming on the line. The 911 operator asked the caller to state the nature of the emergency. The caller did not identify herself but could be heard screaming, "Get the fuck off of me! Get the fuck off of me!" Michael Carroll, the 911 operator who received the call, testified that when he answers an emergency call, his equipment provides a readout of the caller's phone number and address. Mr. Carroll relays the call to the police department's dispatcher, who in turn dispatches officers to the indicated address. In this instance, the caller identification equipment indicated that the call came from a telephone with the number "458-5077." At the time, this was the phone number of Mr. Agostino and his wife, Pamela Agostino. They resided at 1943 Northeast Fifth Terrace in Cape Coral. Officers Don Donakowski and Jason Matyas of the Cape Coral Police Department were dispatched to the Agostino house at about 5:35 a.m. on May 16, 2003, and arrived in separate cars at about 5:39 a.m. From outside the house, they observed a shirtless male, later identified as Mr. Agostino, in the living room area. They did not see Mrs. Agostino. They knocked on the front door, and Mr. Agostino answered. The officers identified themselves, told Mr. Agostino why they had been sent to the house, and asked him what happened. Mr. Agostino told the officers that he and his wife had been arguing over financial matters but denied that there had been any kind of physical confrontation. Officer Matyas noted that Mr. Agostino was reluctant to provide details of the incident. The officers noted no visible injuries on Mr. Agostino. While talking to Mr. Agostino in the doorway, they observed Mrs. Agostino emerge from the master bedroom. Officer Donakowski went inside the house to speak with Mrs. Agostino, who appeared very emotional, scared, and crying. Officer Donakowski observed that she appeared to have been in a physical altercation. There were scratches and a lump over her right eye and dried blood in her hair. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she and her husband had an argument. She told Officer Donakowski that her husband was bipolar and sometimes would go on binges, including spending money he didn't have. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that her husband asked her for a $500 check to pay the mortgage. She told him she didn't have the money, and he became angry and began screaming at her. Fearing for her safety, she ran into the bedroom and locked the door. When Mr. Agostino broke down the door to get to her, Mrs. Agostino grabbed the bedroom telephone and dialed 911. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that when her husband saw her dialing 911, he threw her down, knocked the phone out of her hand, gouged at her eyes, and pulled out a handful of her hair. It was during this attack that she screamed at her husband to get off of her. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she was then able to escape her husband's grasp and run into another room. She also told Officer Donakowski that her husband had attempted to strangle her in a confrontation on the previous day. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she would not give a written statement because she feared retaliation from her husband. After he interviewed Mrs. Agostino, Officer Donakowski went outside and spoke with Mr. Agostino, while Officer Matyas conducted his interview with Mrs. Agostino. Mr. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that the only thing that happened was an argument, though he did admit to breaking down the bedroom door. Mr. Agostino stated that he had never physically abused his wife in seven years of marriage. Officer Matyas noted that Mrs. Agostino was visibly upset and shaken. He observed fresh bloody scratches and swelling around her right eye, as well as blood in her hair near the scratches. Officer Matyas also noted several broken panels in the master bedroom door. When Officer Matyas asked Mrs. Agostino what had happened, she told him that she and her husband had been in the living room. Mr. Agostino asked her for a $500 check to pay the mortgage, because he had spent $600 on a sprinkler system. She told him that she could not give him the money because she needed it for a car payment. Mr. Agostino became angry and verbally abusive. Mrs. Agostino became fearful and locked herself in the bedroom. Mr. Agostino began banging on the bedroom door. As Mrs. Agostino picked up the phone to call 911, Mr. Agostino broke through the door and entered the bedroom. He forced Mrs. Agostino's head down to the floor while gouging at her eyes with his fingers and thumbs. She agreed to give him the money and he let her up. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Matyas that there had been a physical confrontation on the previous day in which her husband attempted to strangle her. She believed her husband was bipolar, though he had not been medically diagnosed. She told Officer Matyas that she did not want to press charges because her husband could be fired from his job. Based on the physical evidence and witness statements, the officers arrested Mr. Agostino and charged him with Battery--Domestic Violence. Officer Donakowski took photographs of Mrs. Agostino's injuries, the broken door, and a clump of hair that Mrs. Agostino stated had been pulled from her head by Mr. Agostino. The photographs were admitted into evidence at this proceeding. The charges against Mr. Agostino were subsequently dismissed. The Lee County School District investigated allegations of misconduct against Mr. Agostino arising from his arrest. At his predetermination conference, Mr. Agostino denied that any physical confrontation took place between his wife and him. The school district concluded that there was no probable cause to impose discipline on Mr. Agostino. At the hearing in this matter, Mrs. Agostino testified that on the morning of May 16, 2003, it was, in fact, she, who attacked her husband. She testified that at the time, she was taking medication for petit mal seizures that made her very agitated, violent, and confused. She stated that the medication also caused her hair to fall out in clumps, accounting for the hair observed by the police officer. The medication named by Mrs. Agostino was Keflex. In fact, Keflex is a marketing name for cephalexin, a cephalosporin antibiotic unrelated to treatment of seizures. However, the symptoms described by Mrs. Agostino are consistent with common reactions to seizure medications. It is within reason that Mrs. Agostino, who is not a medical professional, simply confused Keflex with another medication she was taking for seizures. Mrs. Agostino testified that on the morning of May 16, 2003, she was attempting to confront Mr. Agostino about their finances, but he would not talk to her. Mrs. Agostino testified that his silence infuriated her, and she became violent. Mr. Agostino retreated into the bedroom. She broke through the door and attacked him, hitting him with the telephone, then throwing the telephone at him. Mrs. Agostino testified that she did not know how the 911 call was made. She theorized that the speed-dial may have been activated when she threw the phone at Mr. Agostino. She also had no idea how the scratches appeared around her eye, unless she hit her head on the bedroom door as she broke it down. Mrs. Agostino testified that she told the police officers that her husband attacked her because she was mad at him. At the hearing, Mr. Agostino testified that he and his wife were arguing about money. Mrs. Agostino became very agitated and started to become violent. Mr. Agostino retreated to the bedroom, closing and locking the door behind him. Mrs. Agostino "came through the door" and attacked Mr. Agostino, who put out his hands to fend her off. Mrs. Agostino started hitting him with the telephone. Mr. Agostino tried to get away, and she threw the phone at him. Mr. Agostino went into the living room. Mrs. Agostino followed and continued screaming at him. Mr. Agostino kept the couch between himself and his wife. At that point, the police knocked at the front door. Steven DeShazo, the principal of North Fort Myers High School, testified that he has worked with Mr. Agostino for eight years. Mr. DeShazo has had conversations with Mr. Agostino about scratches and abrasions on the latter's arms, presumably caused by Mrs. Agostino. Mr. DeShazo testified that he has had conversations with both Agostinos about their need for counseling, but that Mr. Agostino did not want to discuss his family problems. Mr. DeShazo discussed the May 16, 2003, incident with Mr. Agostino a few days after the events. Mr. Agostino told him that Mrs. Agostino had attacked him, and he had tried to fend her off. Mr. DeShazo had no personal knowledge of the events of May 16, 2003. The testimony of the Agostinos at the hearing completely contradicted the statements that Mrs. Agostino gave to the police on the morning of May 16, 2003, as well as Mr. Agostino’s admission to Officer Donakowski that he broke down the bedroom door. Only one version of these events can be true. It is found that the version of events related by Mrs. Agostino to the police officers was the truth. The police officers were at the Agostino house within four minutes of the 911 call. They observed that Mr. Agostino was pacing the living room floor and was out of breath. Both officers observed that Mrs. Agostino was very emotional, crying, scared, and upset. These observations lead to the finding that Mrs. Agostino was still suffering under the stress of the attack, and in her emotional state did not have time to contrive a false story. This finding is supported by the fact that Mrs. Agostino's statements to the police officers were consistent with all the other evidence: the 911 call, the broken door, the clump of hair, her own physical injuries, and the fact that she was in the bedroom when the police arrived. At the hearing, Mrs. Agostino attempted to make her new story comport with the physical evidence but was far from convincing. The clump of hair was plausibly explained as a reaction to medication, but she had no explanation at all for the scratches above her eye. Mr. Agostino's testimony hinted that he might have scratched her eye while trying to fend her off. Mrs. Agostino theorized that throwing the telephone might somehow have caused it to speed-dial 911. Even if the undersigned accepted the phone-throwing theory, there is no explanation for why the female voice on the 911 call was screaming, "Get the fuck off of me," if Mrs. Agostino was the aggressor and Mr. Agostino's only physical reaction was to fend her off. There is also no explanation for why Mrs. Agostino was in the bedroom when the police arrived. Mr. Agostino testified that she was in the living room when the police knocked on the front door, directly contradicting the testimony of both police officers. At the hearing, Mr. Agostino testified that he told the police and school officials that there was no physical confrontation in order to protect his wife, who is also an employee of the Lee County School District. He feared that she would lose her job if it became known that she attacked him. Given the evidence presented at the hearing, it is far more likely that Mrs. Agostino changed her story in order to protect her husband’s job. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Agostino committed an act of moral turpitude when he broke down the bedroom door, forced his wife's head down to the floor and gouged her eyes, releasing her only when she agreed to give him the money he wanted. This was an act of serious misconduct in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence by men against women. The evidence presented is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Agostino attempted to strangle his wife on May 15, 2003. In this instance, there was no physical or other evidence to corroborate Mrs. Agostino’s hearsay statement to the police officers that her husband had attempted to strangle her. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Agostino committed an act of moral turpitude, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the May 16, 2003, incident was Mr. DeShazo's testimony that there was news coverage of the arrest. Mr. DeShazo stated that several students approached him expressing concern about Mr. Agostino and their hope that he would be allowed to remain at the school. Mr. DeShazo testified that no parents came to him expressing concern about the incident. There was no evidence to prove that Mr. Agostino's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Agostino's service in the community. There was insufficient evidence presented to establish that Mr. Agostino's performance as a teacher and an employee of the Lee County School District was diminished as a result of the May 16, 2003, incident and its aftermath. Mr. DeShazo testified that Mr. Agostino is the assistant principal for student affairs, which he described as the most high pressure, stressful job at the school. Mr. Agostino has never lost his temper at work, even in situations in which he has been hit and spat upon by unruly students. Mr. DeShazo testified that Mr. Agostino has been at work every day and has handled this uncomfortable situation with complete professionalism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued placing Respondent on a two-year period of probation, subject to such conditions as the Commission may specify, including the requirement that Mr. Agostino undergo a full psychological evaluation and receive any necessary counseling to ensure that he is fully capable of performing his assigned duties with no further incidents such as those of May 16, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Burandt, Esquire Roosa, Sutton, Burandt, Adamski & Roland, LLP 1714 Cape Coral Parkway, East Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9620 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
