Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Michael A. Graham, was a middle school teacher at West Miami Junior High School (WMJHS) in Miami, Florida. He is under a continuing contract as a teacher for petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). He has been an employee in the school system since 1975 and a full-time teacher since 1981. Graham holds bachelor and master degrees from the University of Miami and is currently taking course work at Florida International University towards a second master's degree. On January 12, 1988 the Board voted to suspend Graham without pay for thirty days effective January 20, 1988 for "just cause and misconduct in office." On July 1, 1988 the Board issued a Notice of Charges containing six counts of alleged misconduct. 1/ The charging document alleged that respondent failed to disclose on his job application dated September 24, 1981 that he had been previously arrested on numerous occasions, (b) intentionally exposed a student, I.M., to unnecessary embarrassment, (c) intentionally exposed a student, V.E., to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, (d) intentionally committed a battery on U.C., a student, (e) continually and intentionally refused to discontinue uttering profane and/or vulgar language in his classroom during school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, and (f) continually and intentionally refused to discontinue excessive tardiness and excessive absences during the same school years. These charges will be taken up separately below. Filing A False Application (Counts I and II) During the course of his employment with the Board, Graham has filled out various applications and other informational forms. Relevant to this proceeding is an application for an instructional position filed with the Board on September 24, 1981. The application asked the following question: Have you ever been convicted of anything other than minor traffic violations? Graham responded in the negative. Sometime after Graham filed the above application, the Board had an occasion to run a background check on him. Among other things, the Board uncovered the fact that Graham had been arrested on February 29, 1976 for resisting an officer without violence to his person and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors. The first charge was nolle prossed while Graham was found guilty of the second charge and received a suspended sentence. Certified copies of these records have been introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 10. Although petitioner did not introduce into evidence certified copies of other arrests, there was testimony, without objection, that Graham had been arrested for the following charges: 12/17/71 - public drunkenness 6/05/74 - theft 5/14/76 - worthless checks 4/08/77 - "warrant arrests" 5/18/77 - worthless checks 9/11/79 - worthless checks 9/17/81 - aggravated battery 11/05/82 - worthless checks 2/21/86 - worthless checks During a conference with a school administrator on August 21, 1987, Graham acknowledged that, with the exception of the May 14, 1976 arrest which he did not remember, and the April 8, 1977 matter which he stated involved a voluntary return on his part to the State of Indiana, all other arrests occurred. However, there is no evidence that Graham was convicted of any of these charges, and his testimony that all charges were later dropped was not contradicted. At hearing Graham explained that he thought the question concerning prior arrests on the employment application meant whether his civil rights had ever been taken away. Since they had not, he stated he believed his negative answer was appropriate. Exposing Students to Embarrassment or Disparagement (Counts III and IV) It is alleged that in school year 1986-87, respondent exposed I.M., a seventh grade female student, to "unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." The student did not appear at hearing but gave post-hearing deposition testimony. As clarified at hearing, this charge stems from alleged off-color remarks about I.M.'s clothing made by Graham to I.M. in front of the class. I.M. was a student in Graham's history class in school year 1986-87. While in class on May 11, 1987, I.M. left her desk to go to the restroom. She was wearing tight fitting pants. When she returned, Graham remarked in a loud voice, and in front of the class, that her pants were so tight he "could see her crack and count the hairs." Graham also made her perform a "fabric test" to ascertain whether she could pinch the cloth on the pants without pinching her skin. If I.M. pinched both skin and cloth, this confirmed that the pants were too tight. After Graham made his comments and required I.M. to take the "fabric test," I.M. became embarrassed, felt "cheap," began crying and left the room. She reported the incident to her counselor and prepared a written statement which is attached to her deposition. Also, she described the incident to a school investigator the same day, giving essentially the same version of events described above. This account is deemed to be more accurate and credible than a slightly different version of events given by I.M. by deposition some fifteen months later. Graham recalled the incident differently. According to his recollection, when I.M. returned from the bathroom to the classroom, he told her she had "inappropriate clothing," and if she disputed this, she would be given a hall pass to visit the principal. If the principal approved the pants, she could wear them to school. Otherwise, Graham told her not to wear them to his class in the future. Graham contended also that he said "Your clothing is too tight around the hips and crotch" and denied using the words "hairs" or "crack." He conceded he may have asked her to perform a "fabric test." However, this version of events is not deemed to be credible and is hereby discredited. Student V.E. is a fundamentalist Christian who was in Graham's American History class for the first three days of school year 1987-88. On the first or second day of class Graham gave a class assignment requiring the students to use the Bible as a historical reference but to explain the story without the (i ideas of miracles and deity. V.E. understood this to mean that she was to "take all miracles" out of the story and to "not have God in it." During class that day, V.E. asked a question about a Bible parable being discussed by Graham and, after she gave the biblical version of what happened, Graham asked her if she believed in magic. V.E. felt "bad" and "intimidated" by Graham's question. When she went home that evening, V.E. told her mother about the class assignment. The mother was upset and prepared a letter for Graham and the assistant principal questioning the subject matter of the assignment. V.E. was told by her mother to hand carry a copy of the letter to Graham the next day. Before she could do this, the assistant principal told Graham that V.E.`s mother had sent a letter. When she entered the classroom the next day, V.E. was asked by Graham if she had a letter for him. After being handed the letter, Graham asked V.E. why she told her mother about the assignment and added "I'm pissed." This episode took place in front of the entire classroom. This caused V.E. to be very "upset" and "embarrassed." She immediately transferred out of Graham's class. Graham countered that there was no "homework assignment" per se and that he was merely seeking to obtain "critical thinking" from his students. According to Graham, his discussion was consistent with the approved curriculum and was intended to have the students reconcile biblical stories with other theories of evolution of men. Graham believed that V.E. had misunderstood the discussion as being an attack on religion when in fact it was not. He added that, of all the students, only V.E. reached that erroneous conclusion. He conceded that he "may have" used the words "I'm pissed" but contended that he was justified in questioning her in front of the entire classroom because students frequently hurried off to other classes once the end-of-period bell rang. Battering Urbano (Count IV) In school year 1986-87, Urbano was a fifteen year old male student. He has since departed the state. It is alleged that Graham committed battery on Urbano. According to Graham, who gave the only eyewitness account of the entire fray, Urbano was still a student when the incident occurred but was in the process of withdrawing from school and moving to California. Urbano had been in several classes taught by Graham and had a history of disruptive conduct. Urbano returned to the campus one day to speak with a girlfriend who was in Graham's classroom. Urbano entered the classroom during a change in classes. Not wanting a confrontation, Graham requested the girl to ask Urbano to leave. When she did this, Urbano began cursing Graham and slowly backed into the hallway outside of Graham's classroom. As Graham attempted to close his door, Urbano blocked the door and pushed Graham who responded by pushing Urbano out of the doorway. Urbano then threw a four pound textbook into Graham's chest. After Graham asked Urbano to follow him to the principal's office, Urbano drew back his fist to strike Graham. At that point, and in self-defense, Graham struck Urbano with a blow to the side of his face. In retaliation, Urbano threw a karate kick into Graham's left knee. Graham followed by administering a second blow to Urbano's face. A female physical education teacher then approached the melee, grabbed Urbano on the shoulder and escorted him to the principal's office. According to Graham, Urbano was immediately suspended from school. This was not contradicted. There is no evidence that Graham was criminally charged with battery or disciplined by the school for the incident. Using Profane and Vulgar Language in Class (Count V) It is charged that in school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 Graham was given direct orders to discontinue "uttering profane and/or vulgar language while in the performance of assigned duties as a classroom teacher," and that respondent "continually and intentionally refused to discontinue" doing so. The allegations stem from disciplinary action taken in the fall of 1985. On October 17, 1985 respondent participated in a conference for the record with WMJHS principal Kavenaugh for using "very salty language" in the classroom. Neither Kavenaugh or Graham could recall what words were actually used by Graham. As noted in finding of fact 11, Graham used the words "I'm pissed" while talking to student V.E. in September, 1987. About the same time, he recited a "parable" in V.E.'s class which went generally as follows: A large flock of birds immigrated south one winter but one bird's wings froze, and it fell to the ground. A horse came along and deposited cow shit on the bird. Although the cow shit did not smell good, it kept the bird warm. A cat then came upon the fallen bird, wiped the cow shit off of its wings and ate it. The moral: not everyone who shits on you is your enemy, and not everyone who does you a favor is your friend. Graham acknowledged reciting the above story in class but claimed he used the word "chip" instead of "shit." However, V.E. stated she heard the word "shit," and this version of the events is accepted as being more credible. Principal Kavenaugh gave some vague testimony about other incidents of vulgarity but could not give specifics as to when this occurred or what was said. Other than the order to quit using "very salty language" in October 1985, there is no evidence of any other orders given to Graham by a principal or administrative officer directing him to refrain from using vulgarity or profanity. Excessive Tardiness and Absences (Count VI) The notice of charges alleges that in school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 Graham was "given direct orders to discontinue his excessive tardiness and/or excessive absences," and that he "continually and intentionally refused to discontinue" doing so. Assistant principal Sotolongo authored memoranda to respondent on May 27, 1986 and March 25, 1987 regarding class absences. The first concerned respondent sitting in the teacher's lounge ten minutes after class had started on May 23, 1986. For this infraction, Graham received a reprimand. The assistant principal stated that Graham was "periodically" absent from class but could not recall the number of times this occurred or the dates of such absences. The second memorandum was prompted by Graham being absent from school during the afternoon of March 24, 1987. Graham's explanation of having to see a doctor for a workers' compensation injury was not accepted as being satisfactory. Principal Kavenaugh authored a memorandum on May 6, 1986 concerning punctual attendance by Graham. The memorandum was prepared after Graham had been late to school at least ten times between January 10, 1986 and May 5, 1986. Respondent promised to make an "extra effort" to comply with attendance requirements. There is no evidence that, after the May 6, 1986 memorandum, Graham was late for school or that he refused to comply with attendance requirements. Miscellaneous Graham was told by principal Kavenaugh on one occasion "to be courteous and free of sarcasm" while teaching his students. This order was memorialized in a memorandum dated June 19, 1987. There is no evidence he disobeyed this order. On November 10, 1987 Graham was placed on prescription for one item of performance. This meant he had to correct a deficiency in professional performance and responsibilities. The prescription was prompted primarily by the V.E. incident and the parable given in the history class, both occurring in September, 1987. There is no evidence that Graham did not fulfill the terms of the prescription. According to Dr. D. Patrick Gray, who was accepted as an expert in professional ethics, performance appraisal and professional or personnel management, Graham violated the teachers' code of ethics by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, unreasonably denying a student access to a diverse point of view, and failing to keep the confidence of personally identifiable information concerning a student. He opined further that, given respondent's conduct as described in the Notice of Charges, Graham's effectiveness as a teacher had been seriously impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of those charges in Counts I and II and a portion of Count III. All others should be dismissed. Respondent should also be suspended without pay for thirty days as proposed by the agency in its suspension notice effective January 20, 1988. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 19th day of September, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent was assigned as a math teacher to Miami Senior High School, one of the schools in the school District of Dade County, Florida. On March 20, 1989, Respondent and J.R., a 14 year old male who was one of Respondent's math students, entered into a discussion in Respondent's classroom regarding two musical keyboards that Respondent was trying to sell. J.R. Was interested in purchasing a musical keyboard and had been told by Respondent that he had at his home two musical keyboards that he wanted to sell. J.R. wanted to inspect the two keyboards to determine whether he might be interested in purchasing one of them, but he wanted to wait until the weekend to look at the keyboards so that his father could accompany him when he went to Respondent's house. Respondent had other commitments and advised the student on March 21, 1989, that he would have to look at the keyboards that afternoon. On March 21, 1989, Respondent drove J.R. to Respondent's home for the stated purpose of allowing J.R. to examine the two keyboards. No one else was present at Respondent's home. Respondent showed J.R. the keyboards and quoted J.R. a price for each. When J.R. inquired as to terms of payment, Respondent asked J.R. if he wanted to watch a video with him and stated that he wanted to watch a video so that he could think. Respondent then led J.R. into a darkened bedroom that had, in addition to video equipment, only a chair and a bed. Respondent lay down on the bed and J.R. sat in the chair. Respondent then asked J.R. if he talked a lot or whether he could keep a secret. After J.R. said he did not talk a lot, Respondent showed J.R. a pornographic movie that depicted nudity and sexual intercourse. While watching the movie, Respondent told J.R. that he had seen with a "hard on" during his math class. Respondent then asked J.R. if he had ever measured the size of his penis. When J.R. replied in the negative, Respondent told him that he should. Respondent then asked J.R. whether he "jerked off" often. J.R. replied in the negative and left the room because he was uncomfortable being with Respondent under those circumstances. During the course of the foregoing conversation, Respondent was lying on a bed in this darkened bedroom watching the pornographic movie with this 14 year old student. Respondent then drove J.R. to J.R.'s home after he asked to leave. J.R. immediately reported the incident to his parents when he returned to his home. J.R.'s parents notified the police that evening and reported the incident to the appropriate school officials the next day. This incident caused notoriety which has impaired Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent testified that nothing inappropriate occurred when J.R. inspected the keyboards at his home on March 21, 1989. Respondent testified that he and J.R. drove to his house after school so that J.R. could inspect the keyboards, that while at the house he and J.R. drank a soft drink, looked at the keyboards, and discussed watching a video of a popular movie. Respondent contended that he drove J.R. to J.R.'s home and that nothing else occurred. Respondent denied that he showed J.R. a pornographic video or that he engaged in sexually explicit conversations with J.R. Respondent contended that J.R. fabricated part of his testimony and offered two motives for J.R. to lie. First, Respondent contended that J.R. may have seen this situation as a means to get one of the keyboards from Respondent without having to pay for it. Respondent did not explain how J.R. expected to accomplish this. Second, Respondent contended that J.R. may have fabricated the story to avoid getting into trouble with his parents because they did not know J.R.'s whereabouts during the time he was at Respondent's house on March 21, 1989. These proffered motives as to why J.R. would lie lack credibility and are rejected. J.R. is a good student who had no motive to fabricate his testimony as to the events that occurred at Respondent's house. Respondent's version of the events of March 21, 1989, insofar as that version conflicts with J.R.'s testimony, lacks credibility and is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order which finds Jimmie D. Harris guilty of immorality and of misconduct in office, which affirms the suspension of Jimmie D. Harris without pay, and which terminates the continuing contract of Jimmie D. Harris. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Jimmie D. Harris 13336 S.W. 112 Place Miami, Florida 33176 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Suite 100 - Twin Oaks Building 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE 89-3691 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 3-5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4-6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. There is no paragraph numbered in Petitioner's post-hearing submittal. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 2 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 4 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being unclear and as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7-9 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as being conclusion of law.
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and by doing so violated Sections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (f). If one or all of the violations alleged are proven, what penalty would be appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed as a teacher in Florida, and has been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 449960. Her certificate covers the area of mentally handicapped, and expires June 30, 2013. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent taught at Chaffee Trail in Duval County, Florida. She was assigned as an exceptional education teacher in a self-contained classroom for trainable mentally handicapped students in the first through third grades. Respondent generally had eight to eleven students in her class, and was aided by a paraprofessional, Julie Brooke. Respondent's classroom was on the first-grade hallway. One of Respondent's students was a nine-year-old named C.L. C.L. was a thin, frail, African-American student who, at the time of the incidents giving rise to these proceedings, was approximately four feet, four inches tall and weighed approximately 60 pounds. He was described as very low functioning, with an IQ in the 40's. Despite his significant limitations, C.L. was an active, friendly child who had a tendency to wander and needed redirection. His IEP included specific strategies for dealing with behavior problems in the classroom. Ms. Brooke worked with C.L. daily and he often sat at her desk to work on his assignments. They got along well together. November 18, 2008 On November 18, 2008, there were only four or five students in Respondent's class, because a number of students were absent. That morning, Ms. Brooke took another student to the office because he had been misbehaving. On her way back to Respondent's classroom, she heard loud voices and screaming coming from Respondent's classroom and recognized the voices as those of Respondent and C.L. When she entered the classroom, Ms. Brooke saw Respondent sitting in an office chair, holding C.L. face down on the floor with both of his arms twisted behind his back. Respondent appeared to be pushing C.L. down so that his face and body were pressed against the floor. C.L. was screaming and crying and appeared to be frightened. Ms. Brooke walked over to her desk and sat down. C.L. wanted to go over to Ms. Brooke, but was not allowed to do so. Respondent let him get up, but pinned him into the corner of the classroom near the door, by hemming him in with her chair. Respondent was facing C.L. and pressing the chair against his body, while he continued to scream and cry. About this same time, Assistant Principal Wanda Grondin received a call from a substitute teacher in another classroom on the first-grade hallway, complaining that there was yelling going on that was disturbing her classroom. Ms. Grondin went to the first-grade hallway, and could also hear yelling that was coming from Respondent's classroom. As Ms. Grondin approached the classroom, the yelling stopped. As she entered the room, she saw Respondent sitting in the office chair, with C.L. pinned in the corner of the room, held there by Respondent's chair. C.L. was crying and fighting back. Respondent indicated that he had refused to do something and she was trying to calm him down to give him options. Upon Ms. Grondin's arrival, Respondent slid her chair back, and C.L. fell into Ms. Grondin's arms, crying. Respondent told C.L. that he could now go to Ms. Brooke. C.L. went to Ms. Brooke and she comforted him and gave him some work to do. Later in the day, Ms. Brooke reported to Ms. Grondin that another child in the classroom, M.C., had reported to Ms. Brooke that Respondent had twisted C.L.'s arm and had locked him in the closet in the classroom. Although there was testimony presented regarding conversations that Ms. Grondin, the principal and the guidance counselor had with M.C., and his description of what allegedly happened to C.L., neither M.C. nor any other person who actually witnessed C.L. being locked in the closet testified at hearing. December 16, 2008 Brian Harvell is a first-grade teacher whose classroom is across the hall from Respondent's. On December 16, 2008, he was in his classroom when he heard loud voices and banging noises. Mr. Harvell walked out into the hallway and saw Respondent with C.L., struggling in the doorway. Respondent had her back against the doorframe, and one arm around D.L.'s torso and one of C.L.'s arms twisted behind his back. Mr. Harvell approached Respondent and C.L., and she stated, "Look what's happening in my classroom." When he looked past her, it appeared that a desk had been turned over. C.L. was squirming and crying out while Respondent restrained him. At that point, Mr. Harvell stated, "C.L., come to me." Respondent released C.L. and he walked over to Mr. Harvell, who took him to his classroom. In the classroom, he showed him a carpeted area and a toolbox full of cardboard books. C.L. sat and played quietly for approximately 15-20 minutes, until Ms. Brooke came for him. Mr. Harvell reported the incident to Ms. Grondin. It is not appropriate to control a student by twisting his arm behind his back, pinning him into a corner, or pushing his face toward the floor. It is especially inappropriate to subject a small, frail, mentally handicapped child of C.L.'s size and capacity to such methods of restraint. Respondent was removed from Chaffee Trail on December 19, 2008, as a result of the incidents involving C.L. Her employment with the Duval County School District was terminated in February 2009. The allegations against Respondent were reported in both the print and broadcast news media. The incidents in question also prompted complaints to be filed with the Department of Children and Family Services, and investigations were conducted by DCFS to determine whether there were indicators for child abuse. However, the investigations by DCFS do not address violations of professional standards governing teachers, and the findings are a result of evidence that is different from that presented at the hearing in this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(d),(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-(3)(a),(e) and (f), and permanently revoking her certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Charles L. Smith, holds a temporary state teaching certificate number 514251 issued by the State Department of Education covering the area of physical education. He has been a teacher for fourteen years and holds a master's degree in special education. He is presently the head football coach and a physical education instructor at Stewart High School in Lumpkin, Georgia. This is not respondent's first involvement with a disciplinary proceeding. On June 8, 1983, petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, filed an administrative complaint against Smith alleging that while he was employed as a teacher at Dunnellon High School (Marion County) in school year 1982-83, he made derogatory statements to students and engaged in improper conduct of a sexual nature with a minor female student. The matter eventually culminated in an administrative hearing held on August 11, 1983, where one of petitioner's witnesses was Ruth Annette Edwards, a teacher's aide in Smith's class. Her testimony in that proceeding has been received in evidence as petitioner's Exhibit 3. The testimony can be characterized as damaging, for Edwards gave testimony which tended to corroborate the allegations against Smith. Although the Hearing officer recommended that Smith be found guilty of all charges and that his certificate be revoked for two years, in its Final Order rendered on November 9, 1983, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) expressed "strong doubts that the incident (with the female student) actually occurred" and instead placed respondent on probation for one year and imposed the following conditions: The Respondent will break no laws, nor any rules of the State Board of Education. The Respondent will perform in a satisfactory manner as a teacher, and will cause reports of his performance to be forwarded to the Education Practices Commission. Therefore, under the terms of pro- bation, if respondent violates any state law or EPC rule during the ensuing year, he risks the loss of his teaching certificate. The probation period expires on November 9, 1984. Respondent's contract to teach at Dunnellon High School was not renewed in school year 1983-84. However, Smith's failure to teach there was not due to the EPC disciplinary action, but rather was attributable to his failure to pass the mathematics part of the teacher certification examination. Because of this, he weighed alternative offers from Alachua County School Board and the State of Georgia, and accepted the latter offer because of its higher pay. Sometime prior to 10:30 a.m. on Sunday morning, January 29, 1984, the Clara Davis household in Dunnellon, Florida, received a telephone call. Mrs. Davis answered the telephone and was asked by the caller to speak to her grandson, Pretis Griffin, then nineteen years old and a senior at Dunnellon High School who resided with her. Pretis was a former student in Smith's English class in 1982-83, and also knew him from varsity athletics. Mrs. Davis responded that Pretis was still asleep and hung up. The same caller telephoned back a few minutes later and said he was calling long distance from Gainesville and needed to talk to Pretis. She roused Pretis, who answered the call. Pretis testified the caller identified himself as respondent and sounded like Smith. Although Smith denied he made the call, it is found that Smith did indeed telephone Pretis on January 29. After the two made small-talk initially, Smith then asked Pretis if he would do him a favor. Pretis said "yes," and Smith said "I want you to tell Mrs. Edwards something." Pretis asked "What," and Smith replied, "Tell Mrs. Edwards thanks for what she's done, and I will get back at her through her husband." After some more small-talk, the two ended the conversation by Smith saying, "Don't forget to tell her," followed by a "little laugh." After the call ended, Pretis told his grandmother the caller was Coach Charles Smith. The next day, Monday, January 30, Pretis approached Ruth Edwards at school and told her respondent had telephoned him and wanted to convey a message. Pretis then told her "Coach Smith said thanks for what you done and he'll get you back through your husband." Upon hearing this, Edwards simply shrugged and walked away. The following Sunday, February 5, 1984, the Davis household received another telephone call for Pretis prior to 10:30 a.m. According to Pretis, it was the same caller as the previous Sunday, and despite Smith's denial, it is found that respondent made a second call to Pretis on February 5, 1984. After making small-talk, Smith eventually asked if his message had been delivered and what Edwards' response had been. When Pretis responded that he had, and that Edwards had merely shrugged and walked away, Smith commented "Oh, she thought it was a joke," and Pretis said "I guess." The two then discussed an upcoming basketball game at Dunnellon the following Saturday night and the fact that Smith might attend the game. In the next day or so, Pretis told Edwards at school that Coach Smith had telephoned again and that he might attend the high school basketball game that weekend. Edwards gave no visible response to Pretis' comment. Edwards, who readily acknowledged she dislikes Smith, initially claimed that Pretis relayed three separate messages to her from Smith, and also gave a more threatening account of the conversations between Pretis and Smith. However, it is found that only two calls took place, and the substance of the calls was accurately portrayed by Pretis. After Pretis told Edwards that Smith had telephoned a second time, she went to the assistant principal and advised him that Smith had threatened her. Later, Edwards and Pretis were interviewed, and the matter was then turned over to the Marion County School Board, and eventually referred to petitioner. That prompted the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Smith, who has never met Edwards' husband, denied making the calls. He seemed fully aware of the terms of his probation, and recognized that any violation might jeopardize his teaching certificate. He contended it would be "stupid" to threaten Edwards because it would lead to the exact predicament he finds himself in. On the two mornings in question, he claimed he was either at work (as a clerk at a 7-11 store in Gainesville) or in church. However, his wife was unable to confirm this because of the passage of time since January and February, 1984. Until the hearing, Smith has not seen nor spoken to Edwards (or her husband) since the administrative hearing conducted in August, 1983 and has never carried out any threats against her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.06(3)(m) and that he be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Arthur G. Haller, Esquire 771 N.W. 23rd Avenue, Suite 1 Gainesville, Florida 32301 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Bryce David Forrester attended 7th grade at Glades Junior High for the 1984-1985 school year until his alternative school assignment on May 18, 1985. Petitioner's witness Judy Cobb, Assistant Principal of Glades Junior High had no personal knowledge of Bryce David Forrester's behavior and was not the official record custodian of his records. Her testimony provided no information of probative value. Thomas Zelenak is presently Principal of Glades Junior High and was formerly assistant principal there during the 1984- 1985 school year. He had no personal knowledge of the referrals which allegedly culminated in the computer record of disciplinary referrals admitted as the School's business record (P-2). The discipline referral slips were not offered. All discipline referrals had been by teachers who were not present for hearing and all counseling of the student had been handled by retired Principal Skinner or former Assistant Principal Zahner, neither of whom were available for hearing. Mr. Zelenak also had no personal knowledge of the Respondent's alleged disruptive/ behavior which resulted in the referrals and referral slips which allegedly were behind the computer record. Mr. Zelenak did conduct a parent-administrator conference on April 1, 1985 with Respondent's parents and agreed to Respondent's continued placement at Glades Junior High School provided his behavior improved. Respondent's father testified that at this conference Mr. Zelenak told him that alternative school placement was not in the student's best interest. Mr. Zelanek denied saying this. It is significant that P-2 does not reflect this conference ever occurred even though both Mr Zelenak and Mr. Forrester agree it did occur and the occurrence of this conference is corroborated by other exhibits. Therefore, this entire computer record (P-2) is of doubtful credibility. Mr. Zelenak gave his opinion at hearing that although the student may possess the ability to become a productive student he was not doing so at Glades Junior High and that the student belongs in an alternative placement program because of his disruptive behavior and its effect on the children around him. However, there was no predicate established for Mr. Zelenek's forming this opinion. The official record of the student's final grades for the year indicates failure in three subjects on the date he was withdrawn by the parent, May 22, 1985. Respondent's position was that the School Board did not make appropriate parent contact so as to forestall the alternative school assignment and that the procedure by which School Board officials reviewed and acted upon the principal's(Mr. Skinner's) recommendation of alternative school placement was contrary to School Board Rules duly adopted and promulgated. The testimony of William R. Perry, Director of Alternative Education Placement and Donald Hollis, Coordinator, Alternative Education Placement, that the procedure by which the assignment was made was in substantial compliance with the School Board rules is accepted over a single late postmark offered by Respondent for one of the notifications.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Bryce David Forrester to an appropriate regular school program, preferably at Glades Junior High School. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 27th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 Gary Forrester (Parent) 8340 S. W. 97th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Phyllis 0. Douglas, Esquire 1450 N. E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N. E. 2nd Avenue - Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke, suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2016). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 829054, covering the areas of Education, Leadership, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Holly Hill School in the Volusia County School District. Holly Hill School is a combined K-8 school. During the time in question, Respondent shared a small office with Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards. The office was formerly a teachers’ lounge/lunchroom. It still had a counter, sink, and refrigerator, and had bathrooms that continued to be used on occasion by other teachers. Each of the three teachers who shared the office had their own desk. The office also included two smaller tables at which the teachers could provide service to their ESE students when necessary. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Pollok knew Mr. Edwards, who had been in the ESE program, but did not know Respondent. The incidents described herein occurred between the start of the 2013-2014 school year on August 13, 2013, through late November, 2013, when Respondent was removed from the classroom. Racial Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent made numerous statements of a racial nature. While on hall duty between classes, Respondent would occasionally call African-American children “Bebe’s kids.” The reference was to an animated television show in which “Bebe’s kids” were unruly and ill-mannered African-American children. Mr. Edwards understood the comment to be derogatory, and noted that the children hearing the comment would occasionally react, even to the point of commenting that they did not want to be referred to as such. Respondent’s statements were also heard by Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who likewise understood the term to be derogatory, and observed that the children at the receiving end of the comment looked shocked. She advised Respondent that he should not call them that name. Ms. Pollok testified that Respondent routinely called children “nappy” during hall duty when students transition from one period to the next. The comments were directed to middle school students, whose reactions were perceived by her as being ones of humiliation or embarrassment.1/ Mr. Edwards testified that he heard Respondent refer to African-American children as “nappy,” though not with the frequency with which he called them “Bebe’s kids.” Respondent testified that he only called one child “nappy” at the request of the child, an ESE student -- though not one of his students -- who wanted to be called “napster” or “nappy.” There was no competent, substantial evidence to support that claim. No other teacher substantiated such a request, and Mr. Edwards and Ms. Burnam-Hoyt testified credibly that the term was used more broadly. In any event, as stated by Ms. Fisher, there would be no reason to address any student by that type of obviously inappropriate term, even if requested. Mr. Edwards perceived Respondent’s comments as inappropriate, and they made him uncomfortable. He believed, rightfully, that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable as well. There was no evidence that any student’s learning ability or mental health was actually adversely affected by Respondent’s racially-demeaning statements. Nonetheless, under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students at Holly Hill School from humiliation and embarrassment, conditions reasonably understood to be harmful to their learning environment and their mental health. Sexual Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent repeatedly made statements of a sexual nature. On occasion, when Ms. Pollok arrived to work in less than a cheerful mood, Respondent would state to the effect of “What's the matter, Pollo[]k, why are you grumpy? Am I going to have to go downstairs and talk to your husband about how to wake you up properly?” The first time he made the comment, he accompanied it with hip thrusts and grunts, i.e., sounds that people make when they're having sex, thus accentuating the sexual nature of the comment. The first time Respondent made the statement, Ms. Pollok felt awkward, left the office, and went to her husband’s classroom (he was also a teacher at Holly Hill School) where she stayed until the school day started. When he continued to make such statements on a more regular basis, it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards heard Respondent make the statement to Ms. Pollok on one or two occasions. Respondent denied having ever made the comments, attributing them to Mr. Anderson, who laughingly took credit. Regardless of whether Mr. Anderson may have also made comparable statements, the testimony of Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that Respondent made the statements at issue is more credible, and is accepted. Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who enjoys a well-known and long-term relationship with her wife, would occasionally visit the office. On one occasion, while in the presence of Mr. Edwards, Respondent told Ms. Burnam-Hoyt that she looked nice that day and said “I wish you would switch teams.” Though she gave an off-hand reply, Ms. Burnam-Hoyt did not discuss her sexuality, especially in the workplace, and was offended by the comment. On several other occasions, when Ms. Burnam-Hoyt was not in the room, Respondent commented in the presence of both Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that he wished “she didn’t bat for the other team.” On one occasion, when Ms. Pollok had returned from ESE training and asked Respondent about his day, he replied that “it was pretty boring until your old boss, what's her name, Mandy [Elzy], bent over and showed me her boobs.” Respondent commented, with regard to Anna Garces, that “she was spicy and he'd like to make her his consuela.” When Donna Mounts, a P.E. instructor, would come to the office, Respondent’s favorite phrase was that he “would like to mount Coach Mounts.” Respondent did not make the statement directly to Ms. Mounts, but he made it in the office on a routine basis. Respondent commented regarding Marcie Lockamy, an African-American assistant principal, that “I don’t normally do black ladies, but she’s pretty hot . . . I’d get at that.” Respondent’s denial that he made the statement, or that he even knew who Ms. Lockamy was, was not convincing. Respondent’s comments were repetitive, and he would make some statement every day. Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards told Respondent that he should “tone it down.” In particular, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that he advised Respondent “at different points” that his comments about women were not appropriate, not only because of his own view of the matter, but because he believed them to be disturbing to Ms. Pollok. The requests and recommendations had no identifiable effect. Mr. Anderson’s testimony in this case, apparently designed to exonerate Respondent and transfer responsibility for many of the statements to himself, was not persuasive, and in several instances, conflicted with the more credible testimony of other witnesses.2/ Respondent’s general defense to his sexual comments was that he was just “joking around,” that they occurred when he and the target of his comments “were talking and laughing and having a good time in between classes,” that they were a “jovial gesture,” and the like. He denied that they were perceived as offensive by any the persons within earshot, a statement denied by the persons exposed to his comments. Individually, Respondent’s comments could be categorized as puerile. Collectively, and over time, they rose to the degree that they created a hostile, abusive, offensive, and oppressive environment in the small office that constituted the workplace for the three teachers. Threatening Comments The Administrative Complaint alleges that, over the period of time in question, Respondent made “threatening comments to or around [Ms. Pollok].” As to comments regarding Respondent’s prior work- history as a police officer, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that they were nothing more than “experiences that people have or wanted to share.” Mr. Edwards did not take those statements as threatening. When Respondent discovered that he was being investigated by Holly Hill School, he was understandably upset. He made some comments that expressed his frustration. However, Mr. Edwards testified that Respondent did not threaten him or Ms. Pollok. Respondent admitted to being upset and frustrated, but denied either expressing, or having the intent to harm anyone. The comments, under the circumstances, were not so out of line as to objectively constitute a threat to one’s safety or welfare. Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s allegedly threatening statements created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment in violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Holly Hill School’s Response Ms. Pollok complained of Respondent’s behavior to various administrators at Holly Hill School, including Mr. Strother, and went so far as to request a reassignment of her duties so as to avoid Respondent. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Strother spoke with Respondent. The conversation was “short and brief,” and non-specific, with Mr. Strother generally advising Respondent to “be cognizant of conversations you're having and what you're saying around other people.” On or about November 4, 2013, Ms. Pollok renewed her complaint to Mr. Strother about Respondent’s comments about “the ladies,” and their looks and sexual preferences. Mr. Strother could tell that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards had also spoken to Mr. Strother regarding Respondent’s comments. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Strother sent out an email directing all teachers to have “professional conversations,” and to lead “by example with appropriate conversation.” Though the email was not specific, included other topics, and was sent to a number of Holly Hill School employees, it nonetheless should have placed Respondent on notice to heed not only Mr. Strother’s earlier advice, but also the earlier admonitions from Mr. Edwards and Ms. Pollok to “tone it down.” It did not have the intended effect. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Pollok reported Respondent’s unabated comments about women and those made towards students to Ms. Fisher. Ms. Pollok was upset and crying during their discussion. Ms. Fisher then spoke with Mr. Strother to confirm Ms. Pollok’s earlier complaints. Ms. Fisher reported the allegations to the school district, and on November 21, 2013, an investigation of Respondent’s conduct was initiated. The investigation delved into the sexually-inappropriate comments, and extended into areas that are not the subject of this proceeding, for which Respondent received a reprimand. As to the comments directed to students, which were determined to be violative of principles of professional conduct and school board policy for failing to protect students or exposing them to excessive embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days, and transferred from Holly Hill School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of one year, and a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 23rd day of January, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), and 6B-1.006(3)(h), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, on behalf of the Education Practices Commission, is charged with the responsibility of certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. In accordance with the Order of Pre-hearing Instruction entered in this cause the parties submitted a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Included in that document were the following stipulations of fact: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 798852, covering the area of Athletic Coaching, which is valid through June 30, 2012. At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint in this case, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Atlantic High School in the Volusia County School District. C. W. was a sixteen-year-old female student at Atlantic High School. On or about December 2, 2008, while C. W. was in another teacher’s geometry class, Respondent sat next to C. W. at a table toward the rear of the class. Respondent initiated an exchange of notes (sic) between himself and C. W. The note stated: Respondent: What’s your boyfriends name? Student: Don’t have one why? Respondent: I don’t believe that!! Student: Why not???? Respondent: Because you look like you should have one! Student: Why do I need one LOL no guys are attractive here . . . why do I look like I should have one? Respondent: I never said you needed one!! You just have that look and I can’t say why. Student: ooo so there’s a look that people have when they have a b/f or g/f. Why can’t you say why? Respondent: You are too sexy not to have a ton of guys chasing after you and one of the (sic) should have caught you. If I was in high school I would most definitely be one of them. Student: haha well its not like that at all. They are all UGLY Respondent: So what are you looking for? A super model? The above-referenced note between Respondent and C. W. was inappropriate. C. W. put the note away and did not respond to Respondent’s last inquiry. Respondent attempted to retrieve the note from C. W. C. W. kept the note and turned it in to school administration and reported the Respondent’s conduct. As a result of the foregoing exchange, the student, C. W., was very uncomfortable. She began to think that Respondent had been "coming on" to her. Although Respondent denied that assumption, he acknowledges that the exchange was inappropriate and in poor judgment. Further he acknowledged that the exchange had left C. W. uncomfortable. At no time has Respondent ever denied that the exchange took place and he has not attempted to avoid punishment for the incident. After the exchange and becoming aware of C. W.'s unease, Respondent made every effort to avoid C. W. so that neither would be uncomfortable. To that end the school administration moved Respondent from the classroom where C. W. was assigned, to another classroom. Respondent was disciplined by the school district and remained at Atlantic High School for the remainder of the school year. C. W.'s mother believes Respondent should have been removed from the school. When he was not, ultimately C. W. transferred to another school to complete her senior year. C. W. believes that she was treated unfavorably by students who endorsed Respondent and did not support her decision to report the note-writing incident. Respondent was previously disciplined by another school district for whom he worked. The prior disciplinary event also led to action by the Education Practices Commission. The prior act was dissimilar in facts to the instant case. Respondent is a well-educated and experienced teacher. He holds bachelor and master degrees. Respondent became a teacher in 1998 and has been continuously employed by various school districts since that time. Additionally, he taught at a detention center for youthful offenders for approximately one year. In short, Respondent should have known better than to engage in note writing with C. W., and should not have initiated the note. In addition to distracting C. W. during a class when she should have been allowed to engage in learning, Respondent's conduct in continuing the note writing was immature and contrary to meaningful teaching practices. Respondent has always achieved acceptable performance evaluations. Despite the unrelated lapses in judgment resulting in disciplinary actions, Respondent has continued in employment with the school district. At no time has Respondent ever attempted to touch C. W. inappropriately. At no time did Respondent actually verbally speak to C. W. The entire inappropriate exchange consisted of note writing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a panel of the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the standards of conduct applicable to educators in Florida, found in Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B- 1.006(3)(a), and 6B-1.006(3)(e), imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00, and requiring a period of probation not less than one year under the terms and conditions deemed most appropriate by the panel. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2010 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 28th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joan Stewart, Esquire FEA/United 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marion Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practice Service Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Lawrence J. Ferrara. He holds Florida teaching certificate number 150262, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. He is certified to teach social studies, grades 7-12. He has not been assigned to teach outside of this subject area at any time relevant to this proceeding. While Respondent's performance for the school years 1981-82 through 1985-86 is at issue in this proceeding, a review of his annual evaluations for the years 1966 to 1986 indicate a continuing problem in the control of students in the classroom and teaching effectiveness. Respondent was assigned to teach at John I. Leonard High School beginning with the 1970-71 school year and remained in this assignment until his suspension on February 19, 1986. John I. Leonard High School consisted of a 40 acre campus, 145 teachers, and about 2,200 students during the 1985-86 school year. Luke Thornton has served as principal of John I. Leonard High School since October 22, 1981. In dealing with employees, he follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teacher's Association. He is also guided by district school board policy, administrator's directives and the John I. Leonard High School Teacher and Student Handbooks. Thornton has several assistant principals, including "deans", who are authorized to counsel and reprimand employees. Deans are, however, primarily responsible for discipline of students and working with parents. Guidance counselors at the high school are also known as Senior High Counselors. They provide individual and group counseling to students, interpret test results and assist students in career planning. Guidance counselors may counsel other staff members when need arises. While designated department chairpersons within the school have authority to counsel with teachers in their respective departments, the chairpersons do not have the authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers. The chairperson for the social studies department at John I. Leonard High School is Catherine Thornton (no relation to the principal, Luke Thornton). As the chairperson, Ms. Thornton reviews lesson plans of all 16 teachers in the department to assure that objectives of the unified curriculum program are covered by the teacher. This action is mandated by the school board. Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans one week in advance. They must also prepare emergency lesson plans which can be used by a substitute teacher in the event the teacher is unexpectedly absent. Course assignments within the social studies department are recommended by the chairperson and reviewed by the assistant principal assigned to that task. The entire schedule is eventually approved by the principal. Textbooks are issued to each teacher within the social studies department by the chairperson. The teacher returns the books at the end of the semester or school year. If books are not returned, the teacher must collect the cost of the missing textbook from the student responsible for it. The 1981-82 School Year During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was assigned three 9th grade American government classes and two 11th grade history classes. Respondent's hours of work, to accommodate this teaching schedule, were normally 9:45 a.m. until 5:15 p.m. In previous years, Respondent's assignment had been all 11th grade classes and his hours were normally 6:45 a.m. through 2:15 p.m. Shortly after the beginning of the school year, Luke Thornton became principal. Respondent sought to have his assignment changed by Thornton. The principal denied the request and told Respondent the subject would be revisited at the semester's end. At the end of the semester, Thornton again denied Respondent's request for change in course assignment due to disruption that would be caused in the master schedule, concerns about Respondent's performance, and what Thornton considered to be an excessive amount of failing grades received by students in Respondent's classes during the first nine weeks of the previous semester. During the fall semester, Respondent was absent on several occasions. After the refusal of his request at the end of the semester for a change of his teaching assignment, Respondent took a leave of absence for the entire second semester. During Respondent's absences in the 1981-82 school year, Mary Sandt substituted as the teacher of his classes. Lesson plans were available during the first semester. However, no lesson plans were provided for the second semester. Respondent did not provide any assistance to the substitute teacher in this regard, although testimony of Sandt establishes that other teachers normally provided such assistance. More than any other teacher during the 1981-82 school year, Respondent referred students from his classes to the deans for disciplinary reasons. The referrals were for minor infractions such as talking out of turn, sharpening pencils, and squeaking chairs. Sometimes he referred groups of students for discipline. Earl Higgs, a dean during this school year, discussed ways of handling minor infractions with Respondent. Higgs advised Respondent to review the John I. Leonard Handbook discipline provisions. Respondent was not responsive to these recommendations. Higgs was required to review class rules with Respondent's students on at least three occasions as a result of being called to the class by the Respondent because the class was out of control. Initially, Mary Sandt had some disciplinary problems with Respondent's classes during her substitute teaching for him, but the deans provided her with assistance in gaining control. Thereafter, she was able to control the students with only minor problems. Before referring students, Ms. Sandt attempted to resolve discipline problems in the class. If unsuccessful, she documented her action on a discipline referral slip. Respondent did not follow this procedure. Luke Thornton's first evaluation of Respondent following the 1981-82 school year noted Respondent had a considerable amount of discipline problems with 9th and 11th grade students. In addition, it was noted that students have "difficulty understanding his approach to teaching." Respondent's ineffective working relationship with associates and his failure to attend open house and graduation functions at the school were also noted. The evaluation reflected no areas of strength beyond the observation that Respondent "uses various methods and materials." The 1982-83 School Year The chairperson of the social studies department recommended that Respondent be assigned all 9th grade American Government classes for the 1982-83 school year. The recommendation was approved by Assistant principal Shirley Jackson and by Luke Thornton, the principal. Respondent felt "absolutely demoralized, devastated and dehumanized" and worthless in the eyes of fellow teachers as a result of his assignment to teach 9th grade. The 1982-83 school year produced numerous complaints about Respondent's teaching. His teaching technique essentially consisted of giving students a text book reading assignment and have them answer review questions at the end of the chapter. Students completed these assignments in class time while Respondent read the newspaper or listened to the radio. Students cheated on many occasions in order to complete their work by passing answer sheets around the classroom while Respondent was present. Respondent sometimes gave lectures to his classes. Many times the lectures had nothing to do with the course content. Respondent discussed a lawsuit he had initiated against the school board without relating it to the lesson content. He repeatedly told his students they were immature, he hated them and he preferred to teach upperclassmen. Respondent would tell students to be quiet or find the answer in the book when they asked for assistance. Respondent called students names such as "jackass" and "jerk" in class. Students did not pay attention to Respondent because they found his classes boring. Respondent's general reputation among students was that he was not a good teacher; that he treated students in the same manner each year, and that he was "weird." Many of Respondent's students tried to transfer out of his class. Reasons given to Pat Konttinen a school guidance counselor, for requesting transfers included no motivation for students, inability to understand Respondent's lectures when he gave them, Respondent's failure to lecture on the subject matter, testing students on materials not covered in class, and that the class was boring. Ms. Konttinen discussed specific complaints of students with Respondent, but he did not change his teaching style. The testimony of students concerning the 1982-83 school year reveals that they have had no other teachers at the school who taught as poorly as Respondent. Respondent had the highest rate of textbook losses for the 1982-83 school year. During the first semester of the 1982-83 school year, Ms. Sandt again substituted for Respondent when he was absent. No lesson plans were available contrary to the requirement that such plans be provided. Respondent also failed to complete emergency lesson plans. Ms. Sandt wrote lesson plans and gave assignments when substituting because she had no idea when he would return. When Respondent did return, he threw assignments completed by the students in the trash because Sandt had not graded the work. Substitute teachers do not normally grade papers. The students felt the substitute teacher, Ms. Sandt, was a better teacher than Respondent. During Respondent's absences, Ms. Sandt experienced no discipline problems. Earl Higgs, in his capacity as dean, continued during the 1982-83 school year to receive numerous discipline referrals from Respondent. In each case, Higgs asked students for their side of the story and advised Respondent of actions taken on referrals. These referrals indicated that Respondent did not have proper control of his classes. Students were referred for minor disciplinary matters because Respondent did not want to handle problems on his own. Students who were referred for discipline by Respondent were either never previously referred by any other teacher, or, at most, referred one other time. Respondent continued to send groups of students to the dean. Sometimes the students would get out of control talking and laughing in class because "they could get away with it." On occasion, Respondent would shut the door to the classroom, close the windows and turn off the air conditioner as punishment for the class until the class was in control. On one particular occasion, Luke Thornton walked back to Respondent's room with four girls after they complained that Respondent would not open the room windows and the air conditioning was not working. On arrival at the room, Thornton found the room extremely hot. Respondent was wearing a sweater and the room windows were closed. The principal opened the windows to prevent students from passing out in the heat. Respondent improperly grabbed a student by the arm to discipline him during the 1982-83 school year. Bruises were left on the arm. After an investigation, Respondent was counseled concerning the incident. In his 1983 evaluation of Respondent, Luke Thornton noted that Respondent had knowledge and understanding of his subject matter, maintained an appropriate appearance, possessed appropriate educational qualifications and adhered to the defined duty day. The principal noted no other areas of strength. Numerous performance deficiencies were noted in a sheet attached to the 1983 evaluation form. Specific recommendations for improvement were cited. In regard to teaching technique, Respondent was informed he should vary methods of instruction. Consistency in discipline standards was noted as a way to improve classroom environment. Respondent was urged to strive to achieve rapport with peers and parents, as well as to timely submit lesson plans. Luke Thornton held several conferences with Respondent to discuss the deficiencies noted in the 1983 evaluation. Respondent was not receptive to suggestions. He complained of unfair treatment in course assignments and repeatedly discussed his lawsuit against school officials. Respondent continued to maintain he was better suited to teach 11th graders, although he was certified to teach 9th and 11th graders. The principal told Respondent to be responsible to his students regardless of other personally perceived problems. He also told Respondent that he should work to improve performance. While there is no significant technical difference in teaching either 9th or 11th grade, there is a difference in maturity levels of the students in each grade. Such a difference in maturity levels requires a difference in teaching style. Pat Martin, a guidance counselor, testified that ninth grade boys "get a little antsy" and have to be motivated by the teacher. This testimony was corroborated by Assistant Principal Earl Higgs who preferred to teach 9th graders but conceded they required more assistance and can be more difficult to handle. The 1983-84 School Year Respondent remained in the same teaching assignment during the 1983-84 school year. He did not request a transfer to another school, nor did he request a schedule change. Testimony of students of Respondent for 1983-84 school year was consistent with the testimony of his students from the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's teaching techniques did not vary from the previous year. Respondent's attitude remained unchanged in the 1983-84 school year as he continued to advise his students that they were immature and that he preferred to teach upperclassmen. Students requested transfers at an increased rate from Respondent's classes, indicating that Respondent was unresponsive and they did not know how they were doing in his class. Respondent was advised of student and parent complaints by guidance counselors Pat Konttinen and Melinda Wong. They observed no change in his behavior. Two written complaints were received by Ms. Wong concerning Respondent's behavior in the classroom. Respondent did not issue required progress reports to students at the proper time to advise them whether they were failing. When several students were failed by Respondent, they complained about this fact. Luke Thornton discussed this problem with Respondent. Respondent had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Students defaced a number of books due to Respondent's improper storage of the books. Respondent continued to ignore requests to make lesson plans available. As of February, 1984, Respondent had turned in three lesson plans for a 20 week time period. By June, 1984, Respondent had completed five lesson plans when he should have completed a total of 36 lesson plans. The lesson plans completed by Respondent were usually unsatisfactory. Respondent was on leave for approximately three weeks during the Spring semester of this school year. The substitute teacher was Robin Thomas. Respondent left no lesson plans, nor did he have emergency lesson plans available as required. Catherine Thornton, the department chairperson, provided Ms. Thomas with assistance. Thomas created lesson plans, gave assignments to students and corrected the results even though she was not required to do so. She had no problems with discipline in any of Respondent's five classes. She was 21 years old at the time. When Respondent returned to the class after his absence, the students did not want him back and told Respondent to go away. Respondent did not consider Thomas' graded assignments. Students were required by Respondent to repeat the work previously given by Thomas. Also, after returning to school, Respondent requested lesson plans from Ms. Thomas contrary to normal procedure. On several occasions, David Culp, a dean at the school, was advised by Respondent that he, Respondent, refused to teach the class. Students also told Culp that Respondent would stop teaching. Culp received numerous complaints from parents about the lack of teaching their children received from Respondent. Respondent refused to grade papers on one occasion. He also refused to sign a withdrawal slip for a student even though requested to do so by Culp's office. Both Culp and Earl Higgs received frequent discipline referrals from Respondent. Higgs, serving his last semester as dean during the first semester of the 1983-84 school year, testified that Respondent's referrals did not diminish while he was a dean. Culp became a dean beginning with the 1983-84 school year. Culp's testimony was consistent with that of Higgs concerning the type of referrals Respondent sent to him. Culp was also called to Respondent's room to assist Respondent in regaining control of the class. According to Culp, he routinely visited Respondent's class because of his personal observation that Respondent did not have adequate control of students and the atmosphere in the classroom was so hostile that learning could not take place. Culp discussed Respondent's large number of discipline referrals with Respondent. Culp, like Higgs, had many more discipline referrals from Respondent than other faculty members. Culp estimated 25 per cent of all referrals received by him were from Respondent with the remaining 75 per cent split among the remaining 139 faculty members. Students continued to complain that Respondent did not open windows or turn on the air conditioner when requested. A parent's complaint regarding Respondent's discipline techniques was filed with Luke Thornton. Respondent began to come to work late and leave early. This action was noted and Respondent was warned to adhere to the defined duty day. On April 25, 1984, Luke Thornton placed Respondent on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure as a result of Respondent's continuing problems. The purpose of the program is to provide assistance to teachers with performance problems. Respondent was given a detailed written summary of all deficiencies noted in his performance and given until October 16, 1984, to correct those deficiencies. Among the deficiencies noted were failure to use acceptable teaching techniques, lack of a positive classroom environment through use of acceptable control, lack of professional and effective working relationships with peers and failure to submit proper records. Respondent believed the NEAT procedure was a "device used to get rid of tenured teachers, especially those who made waves." He characterized the "T" in NEAT for "termination," not "time". Respondent's evaluation for the 1983-84 school year noted that the same deficiencies pointed out previously still existed. The evaluation noted that Respondent possessed appropriate educational qualifications and used good oral and written language. Among other subjects, Respondent was criticized for having an inadequate variety of methods and materials, inadequate planning, using inappropriate language with students, discussion of inappropriate topics with students during class time, unwillingness or inability to work effectively with parents, unwillingness or inability to provide a positive learning environment, failure to submit proper records, failure to comply with defined duty days, and failure to have an effective relationship with colleagues. He was admonished to avoid improper language with students, to maintain appropriate standards of discipline and to promote a positive relationship between students and teacher. The 1984-85 School Year At the beginning of the 1984-85 school year, Luke Thornton asked Respondent what assistance he could offer Respondent that had not yet been provided. Respondents refused the principal's offer of assistance. Based on testimony of students who had him as a teacher for the 1984- 85 school year, Respondent's teaching methods did not vary. Students again confirmed that Respondent told them he hated 9th graders and felt they were immature. Students also confirmed that when given worksheet assignments, some students would cheat while Respondent read the newspaper, listened to the radio or looked out the window. Respondent continued to refer to his lawsuit against the school board and school officials during class time. He also discussed with his students the qualifications of another teacher in the social studies department. Respondent's general reputation among his students was that he was boring and no one liked or respected him. Instead of paying attention to Respondent, some students would sleep or "horse around." Students indicated they did not learn anything or learned very little because Respondent did not teach. Also, these students had not encountered any other teachers at the school with teaching problems like those of Respondent. Complaints by students regarding Respondent's refusal to open windows and doors for air continued. On one occasion, Respondent told the class the air conditioner was not working, but refused to open windows because the students were too loud. Respondent refused to give credit for assignments given by the substitute teacher. He refused to issue progress reports. He refused to change a student grade after being directed to do so by Luke Thornton, although such change was appropriate. Guidance counselors continued to receive requests from students seeking transfers from Respondent's class. A new guidance counselor for the 1984-85 school year, Pat Martin, received reports that Respondent constantly talked about his lawsuit during class time. Another guidance counselor also received numerous self-referrals from Respondent's students who were concerned that they were not learning American government, the course subject matter, and that Respondent was talking about his court case. Martin, who had formerly served as a social studies teacher at the school with Respondent, was unable to discuss complaints she received with Respondent. He would not communicate with her and requested she not be allowed to sit in parent conferences with him. As a result, Martin was forced to communicate with Respondent in writing. She handled several complaints of students and parents in this manner. Guidance counselor Elizabeth Konen informed Respondent of complaints from students and parents. Usually, Respondent advised Konen he had no time to participate in conferences with the parents and students. In some instances, Respondent would not respond to parents requests that he contact them. At other times in parent conferences, Respondent would discuss his personal problems with the administration rather than the student's problems. Respondent improved in this school year slightly on textbook accountability, but books and desks continued to be defaced. He also continued to disregard his defined duty hours. Respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year. At the conclusion of the year, he turned in a complete set of plans. Those plans did not meet requirements of indicating what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met. In addition to David Culp, who continued to receive a large number of student discipline referrals from Respondent, Sandra Cowne was assigned to be a dean. Ms. Cowne's testimony is that 35 to 45 percent of her time was spent dealing with referrals by Respondent. Cowne noted 75 per cent of those referrals could and should have been handled by Respondent. Cowne requested students who were referred by Respondent to write out the details of the incident where the student's version differed with that of Respondent. Usually, Respondent did not indicate on the referral form that any action had been taken by him, or whether he had provided instruction to his students about expected and acceptable behavior. Students admitted to administrators that they deliberately "egged" Respondent on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. They also complained that Respondent would shut the windows and make them sit in the heat for discipline, or that he would turn off the air conditioner. They complained that Respondent made them write sentences as punishment, an inappropriate method of discipline. Cowne dealt with several problems when it became apparent Respondent did not have control of his classes. She assisted Respondent in calming classes down and restoring order. The disruption caused by discipline problems adversely affected the amount of learning that took place in Respondent's classroom. Luke Thornton decided to extend the NEAT Procedure to the cover the entire 1984-85 school year. During this time, numerous conferences were held and memos provided to Respondent concerning a multitude of problems. Respondent was observed in class by three administrators. The first observation was conducted on September 19, 1984, by H. W. Berryman, an assistant superintendent and area administrator. An employee of the Palm Beach County School District for 24 years, Berryman has evaluated the performance of principals, teachers, department heads and directors. In his memo to Luke Thornton following the observation, Berryman noted that too much time was taken with roll call and students were not attentive to Respondent's lecture. Berryman was concerned that students in the class were not involved in the total learning process. Berryman stated that he foresaw Respondent "in serious difficulty in managing conduct of students and considered this his most urgent need for growth." On October 4, 1984, Respondent was observed by Dr. Mona Jensen. Jensen is a consultant, certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS). The FPMS was designed to determine effective teaching behaviors. Jensen also trains other administrators in the use of FPMS, both locally and statewide. The FPMS utilizes a written instrument called a Summative Observation Form. This form is used to evaluate teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four domains: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills. Jensen has previously observed teachers with performance problems on the NEAT procedure. The report provided by Jensen to Respondent and Luke Thornton was based on actual behaviors of Respondent which she observed. Jensen noted in the report that students were talking to one another and not participating in the activity at hand. Jensen provided specific recommendations for improvement in all the areas addressed by the Summative Observation Form. According to Jensen, the main problem with Respondent's teaching technique was the lack of several positive teaching behaviors. She offered Respondent a conference and assistance, but he rejected her offer. Respondent was also observed by Lois Biddix on October 29, 1984. She is a FPMS certified state trainer and is authorized to train administrators to observe teachers. Biddix used the Summative Observation Form in her observation of Respondent. Biddix provided a written summary to Respondent and to Luke Thornton. She observed students talking and engaging in activities unrelated to the lesson. The atmosphere in the classroom, she observed, was sedentary and lethargic. Students suffered from boredom and frustration caused by Respondent's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. Biddix's observation of students talking, putting on makeup and sleeping are consistent with those of Berryman and Jensen. Biddix's concern was that students were not involved in the learning process. Her recommendations for improvement were consistent with those noted by Jensen. Dr. Jensen completed a second observation of Respondent on January 31, 1985. Again, she provided a written summary of her observations to Respondent and Luke Thornton. On this occasion, Respondent was presenting a lesson and students were not paying attention or participating in the class discussion. Respondent became frustrated with a student who made a personal remark to him. Jensen's recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. She again offered to arrange a conference with Respondent to discuss recommendations and he again spurned her offer. In response to a recommendation by Earl Higgs that Respondent observe successful teachers in their classrooms, Respondent advised that he wanted to observe Catherine Thornton and Mike Lott. Respondent did not associate with these teachers professionally or otherwise. Both Lott and Catherine Thornton requested that Respondent not be allowed to observe their classes. This request was honored by Luke Thornton because he was aware that Respondent disliked these two teachers. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year indicated the atmosphere in his class was not conducive to learning. He was criticized again concerning the discipline of his class. It was also noted that he continued to make unprofessional comments to his students despite warnings not to do so. Luke Thornton had reviewed specific incidents of such conduct with Respondent during the school year. The evaluation also noted Respondent's failure to adhere to defined duty days after warnings, other poor work habits (i.e., lesson plans) , and his inability to get along with his peers. The 1985-86 School Year Luke Thornton extended the NEAT procedure for Respondent through November 1985, with the hope that Respondent's performance would improve. In the August 19, 1985 letter, Thornton stated: In order to assure that you are given every opportunity to be successful, I am extending the NEAT procedure to November 1, 1985. If at that time, the deficiencies consistently noted . . . continue to exist, I will make my recommendation to the superintendent concerning your employment status with the Palm Beach County School Board. The testimony of Respondent's students for the first semester of the 1985-86 school year confirm that Respondent did not change his teaching techniques despite suggestions given to him for improvement. 9l. One student testified that on the first day of class Respondent told the students they were immature. Other students testified to Respondent's repeated statements that they were immature, childish and that he did not like them. Further, Respondent continued to discuss his problems with the administration during class time. Classroom temperature remained uncomfortable. Respondent advised students to complain to the administration. In one instance, a student vomited in the classroom, creating a foul odor. Although students complained about the smell and administrators located another available classroom, Respondent refused to move his classes. Students testified that Respondent's reputation among them was that he was a "jerk" and a bad teacher who was not liked or respected. Several students stated that they would not want Respondent as their teacher again. He had a bad attitude and they either did not learn anything or they did not learn as much as they felt they should. Respondent did display improvement in taking roll call issuing progress reports, adhering to defined duty days and reducing the number of failures in his classes. He continued to fail to attend open house and to provide adequate lesson plans. In addition to Ms. Cowne and Mr. Culp, Linda Chubbuck was assigned as dean at John I. Leonard High School for the 1985-86 school year. Chubbuck received referrals of students from Respondent which were usually for such minor infractions as talking in class, refusing to be quiet, or not writing "punishment sentences". Student and parent complaints were received by the deans as a result of Respondent continued making students write repetitious sentences. Groups of students were still referred by Respondent. On two occasions, Chubbuck was referred nine to ten students at one time. Cowne was referred six students at one time. The groups were usually referred by Respondent because the students were not being quiet, would not settle down or were otherwise causing disruption. The students who were referred to the deans described Respondent's classes as chaotic. They described Respondent as "caustic and cutting with them." Further, Respondent did not take action to control his classes and rarely instructed students concerning behavior. The deans continued to answer Respondent's requests to come to his class to settle the class down. David Culp saw no improvement in Respondent's ability to control his classes over a three year period. Respondent continued to have more referrals than other teachers, and it was difficult to support Respondent's actions. Due to the constant chaos in Respondent's classes, the deans concluded that very little learning could be taking place. The number of referrals from those classes decreased sharply after Respondent was later suspended from the school. Guidance counselors continued, during this school year, to receive the same type of complaints about Respondent as they had in the past. The only difference was the names of the students making the complaints. The guidance counselors concluded that Respondent was not benefiting students emotionally or academically. Dr. Mona Jensen conducted her third and final observation of Respondent on December 2, 1985. She observed that Respondent's pattern of instruction had not changed. She determined his lesson plan to be insufficient. Respondent had not added any of Jensen's prior recommended positive behaviors to his technique. Respondent continued to fail to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. Jensen concluded that Respondent's "teaching behaviors" were ineffective, ranking Respondent below average as a teacher. Jensen testified that a teacher's behavior should not change based upon the quality of the students. Further, a professional should not allow personal problems with the administration to interfere with providing successful opportunities to students. H.W. Berryman conducted a second observation of Respondent in December, 1985. Berryman was more complimentary of Respondent than was Jensen. Berryman noted Respondent had improved in getting instruction started in the class. He also commended Respondent's knowledge of the subject matter, but noted Respondent seemed to be writing off a majority of the students in the class by allowing them to be inactive and uninvolved in the learning process. Respondent did not communicate well with other social studies teachers at any time at issue in this cause. No improvement of Respondent's behavior in this area was noted during the first semester of the 1985-86 school year. He had heated words for Catherine Thornton, the department chairperson, and expressed his disdain for her. He accused another teacher of theft of a map from his classroom. The atmosphere of the workroom for social studies teachers at the school was hostile and uncomfortable when Respondent was there. Respondent continued to perceive his assignment to teach 9th graders to be a demotion. His peers did not agree. Testimony of teachers indicates that each level of teaching has unique problems. Some teachers volunteered to teach 9th grade. Respondent had difficulty with the administration over reserved parking spaces for the deans, refusing to refrain from parking in the places reserved for them until ordered by Luke Thornton to park elsewhere. The school's security officer was asked by Respondent to investigate the theft of pens and pencils from his desk, as well the source of a stick figure drawing of Respondent. The security officer had not received similar requests from other teachers. An evaluation of Respondent on November 18, 1983, noted he did not have an up to date plan book; that parent complaints about Respondent's unwillingness to work to resolve student problems had been received; and that Respondent remained unable to have a positive relationship with coworkers. Respondent was on the NEAT procedure for a total of 16 academic months. During that time, Respondent's teaching style did not change. He continued to make disparaging remarks to students, failed to provide classroom management and failed to improve his peer relationships. He did not attend open house functions, and failed to maintain adequate lesson plans. Parent and student complaints about him did not diminish. District administrators and school personnel were unable to influence Respondent to change his behavior. Due to Respondent's inability to change and the finding that Respondent was damaging students, Luke Thornton recommended Respondent be terminated from employment. Respondent was suspended in February of 1986, and subsequently terminated from employment by the school board. In Luke Thornton's professional opinion, which is credited, Respondent performed incompetently as an educator from the fall of 1981 until his termination. Further, Respondent's personal conduct during that time seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 24th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX 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 Petitioner submitted 128 proposed findings of fact. Those findings are treated as follows: 1. Included in finding 2.-3. Included in part in findings 1-3, remainder rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached. 4.-5. Included in findings 4-5. 6. Included in findings 6-7. 7.-8. Included in findings 9-10. Included in finding 12. Included in finding 11. Included in part in finding 6, remainder rejected. Included in finding 7. Addressed in findings 13-14. 14.-15. Addressed in finding 14. 16. Included in finding 15. 17.-18. Addressed in findings 16 and 14. Included in finding 17. Included in finding 18. 21.-22. Included in findings 18-19. 23.-24. Included in findings 20-21. Included in finding 23. Included in finding 24. Included in finding 25. 28.-30. Included in findings 26-28. Included in finding 29. Included in finding 30. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 34.-35. Included in finding 32. 36.-37. Included in findings 33-34. Included in finding 31. Included in finding 36. 40.-41. Included in findings 37-39. 42.-43. Included in findings 41-42. 44. Addressed in part in finding 43. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 45.-55. Included in findings 44-54. 56.-57. Addressed in finding 55. Included in finding 56. Included in finding 48. 60.-61. Included in findings 56-57. 62. Included in findings 58-59. 63.-64. Included in findings 60-61. 65.-66 Included in finding 62. 67.-70. Included in findings 63-66. 71.-75. Included in findings 67-70. 76.-83. Included in findings 72-77. 84.-85. Included in finding 76. 86. Included in finding 71. 87.-94. Included in findings 77-83. 95.-128. Included in findings 85-111, except for a portion of proposed finding 122 which is rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Respondent submitted 145 proposed findings of fact. They were encompassed in 52 pages and are treated as follows: 1.-19. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached and cumulative. 20.-24. Included in part in findings 13-14, and 21; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 25. Addressed in part in finding 15. Remainder unnecessary for conclusion. 26.-28. Rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached. 29.-31. Addressed in part in finding 20. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 32.-33. Included in findings 37-38. 34. Included in finding 60. 35.-36. Included in part in finding 88, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 37.-38. Included in part in finding 108, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 39.-40. Included in part in findings 3133, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 41.-52. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. Included in part in findings 20-22, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. Included in part in finding 40, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. Included in finding 23 in part, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 57.-63. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 64.-65. Included in part in finding 93, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 66.-73. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 74. Included in part in finding 113-114, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 75.-80. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Addressed in finding 45. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 83.-84. Included in part in finding 46, remainder unnecessary to conclusion reached. 85. Rejected, unnecessary. 86.-87. Addressed in part in findings 46 and 57, respectively; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 88. Included in part in finding 88. Remainder unnecessary. 89.-90. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 91.-96. Included in part in findings 34-35, remainder rejected as unnecessary. 97.-100. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. 101.-102. Included in part in finding 14, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. 103.-107. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 108.-113. Included in part in findings 58-59, and 79; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 114.-118. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 119.-120. Included in part in finding 87, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 121.-123. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached. l24.-125. Included in part in finding 80. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 126.-129. Included in part in findings 81-84, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Included in part in finding 67. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Included in part in finding 86, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Rejected, unnecessary to conclusion and cumulative. Included in part in finding 88, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. Included in part in finding 89, remainder rejected as unnecessary. 135.-136. Rejected, unnecessary to conclusion reached. 137.-141. Included in part in findings 102-103, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. 142.-143. Included in part in finding 85, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 144.-145. Included in part in finding 110, remainder rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Suite C-135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator. Professional Practices Services Department of Education 319 W. Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
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
