The Issue Whether or not the Respondent student, Rommel Luis Montes, should be assigned to the J. R. E. Lee Center, an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Rommel Luis Montes, age fifteen, was a student at Riviera Junior High School (Riviera) in Dade County, Florida, during the school years 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1986-87. During the 1984-85 school year Respondent's academic performance was very poor. He received five failing grades, passing only the subject of physical education with the grade of C. Also his ratings for effort during the four marking periods of that year were poor. The result of Respondent's lack of effort and poor academic performance was his not being promoted to the next grade. During the 1985-86 school year Respondent's academic performance was also poor. During that year he received poor ratings for effort, a D as a final grade in five subjects and the grade of F in two subjects. Respondent did not improve his academic performance during the 1986-87 school year. During the first grading period of that year, Respondent received grades of F in three subjects, grades of D in two subjects and one incomplete grade which subsequently was changed to an F. As before, Respondent's rating for effort was poor. Mrs. Carol Ann Golden, a math teacher, had Respondent as a student during the first marking period of the 1986-87 school year. While enrolled in that class, Respondent refused to do any work. Most of the time he would come to class without materials, he would rarely do homework and less than 10 percent of the time did he perform any class work. He had unexcused latenesses and out of forty-five school days he was absent twenty. In efforts to discourage tardiness, Mrs. Golden would issue detentions to Respondent (requiring him to stay in school after hours), but he would either serve them late or not at all, in defiance of school personnel authority. Those times when Respondent was issued indoor suspensions (CSI) as a disciplinary measure, he would refuse to do any work. Mrs. Deanna A. Villalobos, a history teacher at Riviera, also had Respondent as a student during the 1986-87 school year. Here again Respondent's behavior was the same: he would come to class without materials 70 percent of the time, hardly did any homework, performed approximately 5 percent of the work assigned in class, had approximately twenty absences (including one instance when he failed to return to class after lunch), was frequently tardy, would spend his time day dreaming and looking out the window, and as a result failed all the history tests administered. Respondent was also issued detentions by Mrs. Villalobos which he failed to serve. It is the practice at Riviera for teachers and school administrators to submit written reports relative to troublesome student behavior. Such reports are prepared on forms called Student Case Management Referral Forms (SCMRF) and are generally reserved for serious behavior problems. Mrs. Golden and Mrs. Villalobos each issued two SCMRFs on Respondent regarding, inter alia, his total lack of interest in school and failing grade average. In addition Respondent received five other SCMRFs from a different teacher. In addition to Respondent's lack of interest in school, these reports also complained of his skipping class, excessive talking in class, leaving class without permission, and simply refusing to do any work in class. As a counselor at Riviera, Mrs. Waizenhofer worked on a weekly basis with Respondent. From her testimony it was apparent that Respondent, although not a bad kid, was disinterested in school and was not responding to the various techniques used by teachers, counselors and administrators to make students more interested and improve their academic performance. During one counseling session Respondent, while in tears, promised Mrs. Waizenhofer to improve his school effort just a little. Twenty minutes later, Respondent was caught cutting class. One attempt at interesting Respondent in school, was to place him in the work experience program at Riviera. This consisted of securing employment for Respondent at Burger King on a part-time basis. Respondent was not able to hold the job for more than two weeks and he failed the program. Mrs. Thomas, assistant principal, and Mrs. Waizenhofer had numerous conferences with Respondent's mother. The parent, however, was not able to cause a change in Respondent's attitude toward school. It was recommended to both Respondent and his parent that assistance be sought at different community agencies, which could provide specialized counseling services at little or no cost. Despite the efforts made by the school administrators, no change was noted in Respondent. At Riviera, like other schools with regular school programs, the average number of students in a class is about thirty. Such schools are not geared to address peculiar student needs or provide individual students with continuous special attention. By contrast, at an opportunity school, such as the J. R. E. Lee Center, the ratio of teachers to students is about nine-to- one, students are the subject of individualized educational plans, and there are more counselors on staff, including a psychologist. The expert opinions of both Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Waizenhofer was that the more structured environment at an opportunity school would be better for Respondent, as opposed to permitting him to remain in a regular school program where he was making no progress.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the assignment of Respondent Rommel Luis Montes to the J. R. E. Lee Center. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0294 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1-12, have been adopted in paragraphs 1-12, respectively. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mrs. Estrella Montes 10030 Southwest 43rd Street Miami, Florida 33165 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools The School Board of Dade County, Florida 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Milton Aaron Wetherington, holds Florida teacher's certificate number 035136 issued by the State Department of Education covering the areas of physical education, history and administration/supervision. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1991. This proceeding involves an administrative complaint filed against Wetherington by petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education. The complaint stems from various complaints lodged with the Volusia County School Board by several students and parents who alleged that Wetherington engaged or attempted to engage in improper relationships of a romantic nature with female high school students assigned to his classes. The filing of the administrative complaint precipitated the instant action. Wetherington, who is 57 years old, has been a teacher for some twenty seven years, the last seventeen in the Volusia County school system. From 1975 until 1984 Wetherington was a teacher at Spruce Creek School in Port Orange, Florida. Because of the pending disciplinary proceeding, he was reassigned to a non-instructional position as an assistant manager of purchasing and property for school year 1984-85. However, after the charges came to light in early 1984, Wetherington was allowed to continue as a teacher for the remainder of the school year, and was a chaperone on the senior class trip to Walt Disney World. In his twenty seven years of teaching, he has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him. In school year 1983-84 Wetherington taught a political systems course to first semester seniors. Two of his students were Lisa and Tammy, both seventeen years of age at the time, and the best of friends. Seven of the specific charges in the complaint involve respondent's relationship with Lisa, and to a lesser extent, Tammy. Lisa lived at home with her mother and step father for a part of her senior year. Because of problems with her stepfather, who beat her, she moved out at the end of January, 1984, to live with a girlfriend. She was involved with drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, and was experiencing financial problems. Lisa needed a social studies course to graduate, and transferred into Wetherington's class about two weeks after the semester started. She had not met or known Wetherington prior to that time. Wetherington immediately took a special interest in Lisa, and selected her to assist him during office hours with grading papers and the like. Lisa spotted an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and began cultivating the relationship in an assiduous manner. Her testimony reveals she had two goals in mind: to obtain money from Wetherington and to get a good grade without studying. She also saw the opportunity to get her friend Tammy a good grade since she had access to Wetherington's grade book. The relationship was non-sexual, and all parties agree that Wetherington made no sexual advances or demands upon Lisa. One evening during the fall of 1983, Wetherington asked Lisa if she and Tammy wanted to get a pizza after a football game. Lisa agreed and Wetherington gave her $20 to purchase the food. The three met briefly in separate cars at a local Pizza Hut, but after the girls saw other students there, they all drove in Wetherington's car to the Breakers Restaurant and Lounge, an establishment in New Smyrna Beach. They arrived around 12:45 a.m. or so, and after being seated in a booth next to the stage on which a band was playing, they placed an order for pizza. Because of the lateness of the hour, the waitress informed there the kitchen had closed. They then departed the premises and returned to Daytona Beach where all went their separate ways. The two girls claimed Wetherington purchased them an alcoholic drink at the Breakers, but a member of the band, who happened to be a teaching colleague of Wetherington disputed this and observed the three had no drinks during their five to seven minute stay at the restaurant. His testimony is deemed to be more credible and it is found respondent did not "purchase alcoholic beverages for both students" as alleged in the administrative complaint. At some point in the first semester, Wetherington gave Lisa a key to his house in Holly Hill where he lives alone. According to respondent, he did so since he wanted Lisa to have a place to go in the event she suffered a beating from her stepfather. Lisa visited his house approximately five times in the company of a girlfriend when Wetherington was home, and an undisclosed number of times when he was not at home. One of Wetherington's sons lives at Bunnell, and visited his father regularly. The son kept a stash of marijuana at the house which the son used when he visited. Wetherington acknowledged that this was true, but maintained he did not know where it was hidden at the time. Indeed, he claimed he never used drugs himself, and objected to their use by other persons. Wetherington gave Lisa instructions to use the key only when she had problems with her stepfather, but Lisa ignored these instructions. While at Wetherington's home, she used both alcohol and marijuana on at least one occasion in his presence. The alcohol (wine) was taken from Wetherington's refrigerator while the marijuana was either brought onto the premises by Lisa, or came from the son's hidden stash. 1/ There is no credible evidence that Wetherington himself used "marijuana and alcohol at his residence with female students" as charged in the complaint. During the school year, Wetherington gave Lisa a friendship ring valued at $12, some $500 in cash, between $400 and $500 worth of clothes, and lent her an Amoco gasoline credit card for gasoline purchases to get her to and from the part-time job she held. Lisa charged some $120 worth of gasoline on the card as well as $247 in auto repairs. With her mother's consent, and after clearing it with the school principal, he also paid Lisa's mother $500 for the equity in Lisa's car, transferred the title to his own name, and financed it with a Miami bank. Lisa got to use the car with the understanding that she would pay him $125 a month, which was Wetherington's obligation on the bank note. Wetherington considered all this to be a "loan," and kept a book detailing the total amount advanced to Lisa. As a part of the social studies course, Wetherington required each student to prepare a term paper. Wetherington gave fourteen students, including Lisa and Tammy, copies of term papers written in the prior year with instructions to use them as a "format" or "guideline" in preparing their own. Lisa and Tammy simply changed the title page, and turned the papers back in as if they were their own. They each received a grade of 25, which was the highest grade in the class. Lisa claimed she simply did what Wetherington told her to do, and Tammy corroborated this claim. Although Wetherington was negligent in failing to detect that the papers turned in by Lisa and Tammy were identical to those previously given them to be used as a "formats" the evidence does not support a finding that Wetherington gave them the papers for the purpose of evading any academic requirements. The final charge concerning Lisa and Tammy is that Wetherington "[o]n at least one occasion kissed and hugged a female student." This charge apparently stems from Wetherington kissing Lisa on the cheek one day and giving her a paternal hug. Wetherington does not deny this, but contends it was not romantic in nature but done in a fatherly way. Wendy was a seventeen year old senior at Spruce Creek High School in school year 1983-94. She is the source of some four separate charges against respondent in the administrative complaint. Wetherington approached her at the beginning of the year and asked if she wanted to be his teacher's aide. She said yes, and he accordingly rearranged her schedule so that she worked in his office or classroom during first period as an aide, and was a student in his social studies class the following period. During the first nine weeks, Wetherington gave Wendy two rings, one for her birthday and the other to simply keep till the end of the school year. He also gave her $230 in cash over this period of time. He kept a log detailing each amount of money given to her, and considered the payments to be a loan. While working in Wetherington's classroom one day, Wendy walked by Wetherington who pulled her onto his lap and began rubbing her upper thigh. He also approached her one day in his office and put his arms around her waist and pulled her towards him. After she told him, "I don't want this," he released her. She then pulled away and claimed she immediately reported the incident to the principal. The principal could not recall such a conversation. The next day Wetherington apologized to her in his office, but he then turned off the lights in the room and began hugging her. She pushed him away and ran out of the room. Although Wendy again claimed that she immediately reported the incident to the school principal, the principal could not recall such a meeting. In any event, Wendy went to her parents, disclosed the various incidents and gave them the two rings given to her by Wetherington. The parents were understandably irate, and went to the principal demanding that Wendy be transferred out of Wetherington's class. A meeting was held by the principal, with Wetherington and the two parents in attendance. At the meeting Wetherington simply acknowledged that he admired Wendy very much, that she was a good student, and that the cash given to her ($230) was a loan for car payments and voice lessons because he trusted her. However, Wendy does not own a car, and her another paid for all voice lessons. Moreover, her father is a physician who has provided well for his family. The mother then wrote Wetherington a check for $230 to repay the "loan." Wendy was also transferred out of respondent's class. Wendy acknowledged that she "took advantage" of Wetherington, and characterized their relationship as simply a friendship. In a note written to him in a school yearbook at the end of the year, she apologized for "putting (him) through hell" and wished she "could erase it all." Wetherington denied any romantic involvement with Wendy, and acknowledged only that he had kissed her twice on the cheek, once at a football game and another time outside his house. He attributes Wendy's story to emotional problems she was experiencing that fall caused by her relationship with a married man. Wetherington portrayed himself as a teacher genuinely interested in his students. He estimated he has given financial aid in the form of loans and gifts to students over the years in excess of $10,000. Because he has raised seven children of his own, he vigorously denied having any illicit or sinister purpose in his dealings with Lisa and Wendy. Instead, he contended he was merely helping them overcome personal and financial problems so that they would be better persons after graduation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found GUILTY of violating Rules 6B- 1.06(3)(a) and (e), and Subsection 231.28(1)(c), as set out more specifically in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order. All other charges should be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be placed on probation for three years and that he be retained by the school board during his probationary period only as a non- instructional employee. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of January, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and how, Respondent should be disciplined for failing to take appropriate action regarding a middle school student who brought a knife to school.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1063574 and is licensed in the fields of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Reading, and Exceptional Student Education. She began teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School in Lee County in September 2011, after the start of the 2011-2012 school year. During instruction in her fourth period class on February 13, 2012, Respondent heard a student ask another student, who was an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student with emotional issues, "was that a knife?" The ESE student responded, "Drama!" When Respondent looked up, she saw the ESE student place something in her lap, out of Respondent's view. Respondent did not see what it was but saw a flash of silver or metal. The class started to "act up," and Respondent decided to diffuse the incident and quiet the class by telling the ESE student to "put it away." The ESE student then put the object in her backpack. When the class ended, Respondent approached the ESE student and asked if she had a knife. The student denied it. Respondent told the student, if she had a knife, that would be unacceptable, but Respondent did not pursue the matter any further at the time and allowed the student to leave for her next class. During Respondent's eighth period class, the last period of the day, Respondent asked her student-aide, who also was a student in her fourth period class, about the incident during fourth period. The student-aide told Respondent that it was a knife, like a small steak knife, and that the ESE student had been licking it. After speaking with her student-aide, Respondent sent the school's ESE director, who also was the ESE student's caseworker, an electronic message simply asking to discuss the student with her when she had a moment. No details about the incident were included in the message out of Respondent's concern that it would be a public record. Respondent did not receive a response by the end of the school day. The ESE director received the message after hours. The next morning, Respondent saw the ESE director at a teacher's meeting and explained the previous day's incident. The ESE director was concerned about the delay in doing anything else about it and immediately went to the school principal, who was in the cafeteria, as were several other students, including Respondent's ESE student. The principal immediately went to the student and asked if she had a knife. The student admitted she did and thought it was no big deal since Respondent did nothing about it the day before. The student later stated that she was depressed and was considering cutting herself with the knife. Respondent now understands that she did not take the appropriate action on February 13, 2012. However, she contends that there are mitigating factors to consider, and any discipline should be constructive (such as, additional training), not punitive. Respondent attempts to defend herself to an extent by saying she did not actually see the knife during fourth period. However, it is clear that Respondent heard students asking about a knife, and saw something silver or metallic that could have been a knife, and was aware of the student's emotional issues. In light of those circumstances, Respondent should not have been satisfied with the student's denial that she had a knife; she should have involved the school's administrators and resource officer at that point. When she learned during eighth period that the student in fact had a knife, she should not have been satisfied with an unacknowledged electronic message to the ESE director. Respondent also attempts to deflect some blame onto the school for not making sure she knew what to do about incidents like the one that confronted her on February 13, 2012. It may well be true, as she testified, that Respondent did not get a copy of the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students, normally distributed to teachers at the beginning of the school year, which identifies a kitchen knife as a weapon and prohibits it. Petitioner attempted to impeach Respondent's denial of receipt of the document by citing a handful of student discipline referrals by Respondent that use incident types taken from that document. One incident type, albeit not used by Respondent in any of her referrals, was possession of weapons; however, the form does not define weapons. Respondent testified convincingly that she used the forms without reference to the source document. Nonetheless, she knew it would be unacceptable for a student to have a knife at school. When Respondent started teaching at the school, she was offered an opportunity to take the APPLES program for new teachers, which provides information and training on codes of conduct, including provisions to protect the safety of students and faculty. Respondent opted out, stating that she took the APPLES program during her previous employment in Collier County. While perhaps not handed to Respondent when she started teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School, the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students was easily accessible from Respondent's school computer via a program called SharePoint that was a link on the home page. Respondent denies ever accessing the material from her computer. However, Respondent prepared a professional development plan shortly after she started teaching at the school in October 2011. It included a plan to train on how to download documents from SharePoint, but Respondent had not yet followed through on that plan by the time of the incident. Information also was available to Respondent in the form of an Agenda book that she was given. The Agenda book contained the school's rules, including one prohibiting weapons as nuisances and providing that they would be confiscated. It is not clear whether any of the information provided or available to Respondent would have told her what to do in circumstances where she suspected, but was not certain, that a student had a knife, and the student denied it. Based on the facts of this case, additional training is appropriate and actually is desired by Respondent. On the other hand, Respondent would rather not be reprimanded, submit to supervised probation, and pay a $500 fine and pay costs, as Petitioner proposes. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, Petitioner's proposal would be harsh, not constructive, and possibly demoralizing. The evidence is clear that Respondent will follow the rules she is given and take appropriate action in a situation if she knows what is expected of her. A repeat of the failure to act appropriately in a situation similar to the incident on February 13, 2012, is not likely.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission find Respondent guilty of violating rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issue a letter of reprimand, and place her on a short term of probation conditioned on the completion of appropriate additional training. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of April, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent Michael Eric Pose, age fifteen, was a student at West Miami Junior High School (West Miami) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent's academic performance during the 1986-1987 school year was very poor. He received the grade of "F" in every class. His grades for conduct were also mostly "Fs." In addition, he received the lowest grade for effort (3). Respondent's poor academic performance, lack of effort, and unacceptable conduct resulted in his rot being promoted to the next grade. During the first three marking periods of the 1986-1987 school year, Respondent was enrolled in Louise Johnson's math class, where he was marked absent about 58 times and late 12 times. When Respondent did attend classes he would come without materials and refused to do work when materials were provided by his teacher. He failed to complete 99 percent of his homework assignments and refused 95 percent of the time to perform any class work. On at least two occasions, Respondent was caught sleeping in class by Ms. Johnson. The grades he received in that class for academic performance, effort and conduct were "F- 3-F" (scholarship-effort-conduct). Ms. Harriet Wade, physical education teacher, also had Respondent as a student during the 1986-87 school year. In that class, he was absent 60 times and late 8 times. He refused to wear his gym clothing to the physical education class, refused to participate in games or perform exercises, and frequently engaged in activities which disrupted the class, such as talking to other students and wandering over to talk to other groups. He earned "F-3-F". Ms. Wade's normal form of discipline is to assign detentions and/or the running of laps. Respondent refused to serve either punishment on each occasion it was assigned. Respondent's mother offered as an excuse for Respondent's failure to meet the physical education requirements that he had dislocated his hip when he was four years old. However, she also stated that the surgery was deemed successful and it is clear that the proper medical excuses or records were never submitted to school personnel. There is no competent medical opinion that Michael is presently disabled from normal sports or participation in other school activities. In the same school year, Respondent was also a student of Ms. Tania Martinez-Cruz, English teacher. He was absent from her class 64 times and late 6 times. He refused to do classwork 98 percent of the time and never turned in any homework assignments. After it became apparent that Respondent would not bring materials to class, Ms. Martinez-Cruz kept materials in her classroom for him so that he would have no excuse to avoid working in her class. This method failed. Moreover, during the times he did attend class, Respondent spent 90 percent of the class period sleeping, even though she placed him in the front of the class and required him to participate in classwork as much as possible. Student Case Management Referral Forms (SCMRFs) generally reserved for serious behavior problems, were issued on Respondent's behavior by Ms. Johnson, Ms. Wade, and Ms. Martinez-Cruz due to his lack of interest in school, poor behavior, absences, and tardies. In addition, Respondent received five other SCMRFs from different teachers and/or administrators, all of whom complained of his disinterest in school and unacceptable behavior. One such complaint involved breaking in to a teacher's automobile. Because Respondent was frequently engaged in conflicts of a disruptive nature, he was suspended five times during the 1986-87 school year. Mr. Sotolongo, Assistant Principal, had numerous conversations with Respondent's mother regarding his excessive absences, poor behavior and lack of progress. However, to date the mother has not been able to improve Respondent's interest in school. After numerous attempts at counseling the mother and Respondent, a child study team report was made and conference thereon was held. This report and conference resulted in the administrative assignment of Respondent to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. The opinions of the Assistant Principal and the other teachers and administrators who had conferences regarding Respondent was that the more structured environment of an opportunity school would be better for him, as opposed to permitting him to remain in the regular school program where he was making no progress.
