The Issue Whether Respondent's continuing contract of employment with the Petitioner should be terminated for incompetency or for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as an elementary school classroom teacher pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. Respondent is 57 years of age and has been a classroom teacher for a total of 29 years. She began working for Petitioner during the 1975-76 school year and has worked under a continuing contract since August 1980. Prior to that time, she was a classroom teacher in Winter Park, Florida. In 1980, Respondent's principal observed that Respondent was habitually tardy at the work site and had difficulty accepting criticism. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent's principal found Respondent to be deficient in classroom management, student-teacher relationships, instructional techniques, and supportive characteristics. Efforts to have Respondent correct these deficiencies were unsuccessful. A prescription of assigned activities was developed in an effort to help Respondent to correct these deficiencies. Respondent was required to attend a teacher education course in classroom management to obtain ideas on how to better manage her class. Respondent failed to complete that course. She also failed to follow administrative directives that she arrive at school on time and that she maintain anecdotal records for students. Respondent's poor teaching performance and insubordinate behavior in failing to follow directives led Respondent's principal to recommend that her employment be terminated. No action was taken on that recommendation. There was no evidence as to Respondent's job performance between the 1983-84 school year and the 1991-92 school year. From 1991 through 1993, Respondent was assigned to teach a second grade class at Palm Springs North Elementary (Palm Springs). Dawn Hurns was the Respondent's principal at Palm Springs and Raquel Montoya was her assistant principal. Respondent frequently took her class to lunch earlier than scheduled and picked her class up from lunch after the period had expired. Ms. Montoya directed Respondent to adhere to her lunch schedule. Respondent failed to comply with that directive. On February 6, 1992, Ms. Montoya advised Respondent that her continued failure to adhere to administrative directives would result in formal disciplinary action being taken against her. During the 1992-93 school year, Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's performance and noted deficiencies pertaining to record keeping, attendance, tardiness, and organizational skills. After formally observing Respondent's deficient classroom performance, Ms. Hurns met with Respondent and gave her an opportunity to work on her deficiencies. In subsequent observations, both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Montoya found Respondent's performance to be deficient. In an attempt to remedy her unacceptable performance in the classroom, Respondent was provided prescriptive activities designed to improve her classroom management. On November 2, 1992, Ms. Hurns issued Respondent a memorandum addressing her chronic tardiness to school and her failure to notify the school of her expected tardiness in violation of her professional responsibilities. As a result of frequent tardiness, Respondent's students were often left unattended on the basketball court where they assembled before school began. Ms. Hurns often had to escort Respondent's students to their classroom in the absence of the Respondent. Ms. Hurns held a "Conference for the Record" (CFR) with Respondent on December 10, 1992, to address her unacceptable performance and to notify her that continued unacceptable performance would yield an unacceptable annual evaluation. Ms. Hurns also offered Respondent assistance in correcting her deficiencies, including a referral to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Although two meetings were scheduled for Respondent at the EAP, Respondent did not attend either meeting and did not take advantage of the EAP. By December 21, 1992, Respondent had received two unacceptable observations, which yielded an unacceptable summative assessment as established by Petitioner's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). 2/ On January 13, 1993, Ms. Hurns completed a TADS summative assessment form that found Respondent's classroom performance unacceptable in three out of seven categories. The first category was "Knowledge of Subject Matter" with the observed deficiency being ineffective presentation of the subject matter. The second category was "Teacher-Student Relationships" with the observed deficiency being the failure to attempt to systematically involve all students in class activities. The third category was "Assessment Techniques" with the observed deficiency being the failure to properly record grades for students. Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's grade books and discovered that, except for one or two grades in reading, there were no grades or other assessment of the students' work over a period of nine weeks. Respondent was directed to follow the prescribed grading policy, which required a teacher to have at lease one grade per week for each subject area. It was impossible to adequately assess students' work with such few grades or with no grades at all. In addition to the foregoing, Respondent continued to be absent or tardy without excuse. On January 14, 1993, Ms. Hurns held a CFR with Respondent to discuss Respondent's lack of compliance with her professional responsibilities, her irregular attendance, and her frequent tardiness. At the CFR, Respondent was directed to notify an administrator of her intent to be absent or tardy to school, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to provide grades for her students. By memorandum dated February 17, 1993, after a prolonged absence by Respondent, Ms. Hurns advised Respondent of her continuing failure to complete her prescribed activities, and her continuing lack of attendance. Ms. Hurns directed Respondent to either take a leave of absence and notify the school when she expected to return or to resign. On March 8, 1993, Ms. Montoya notified Respondent of her continued disregard for administrative directives. After a parent requested to see proof of her daughter's lack of academic progress in Respondent's classroom and complained of Respondent's refusal to assist the parent in improving her child's performance, Respondent was directed by Ms. Montoya to provide the parent with a daily progress report on the student's performance. Respondent failed to comply with this directive. On March 11, 1993, Ms. Hurns formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and noted that Respondent had not complied with School Board rules, labor contract provisions, and school site rules. Respondent did not maintain accurate student records pertaining to grades for her students, she had not completed her prescriptive activities, and she continued to be absent on a frequent basis. Ms. Hurns held another CFR with Respondent on March 11, 1993, and told her that her continuing failure to comply with the administrative directives given January 14, 1993, constituted gross insubordination. As a result of Respondent having obtained two unacceptable summative assessments, Ms. Hurns requested that Petitioner send to Palm Springs a trained observer to conduct an observation of the Respondent's performance. In response to that request, Norma Bossard, a Language Arts supervisor who had been trained as a TADS observer, was sent by Petitioner to observe the Respondent. Ms. Hurns was present when Ms. Bossard conducted her formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance. Both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Bossard found Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the following categories: "Preparation and Planning," "Knowledge of the Subject Matter," "Techniques of Instruction," and "Assessment Techniques". During the external observation, Respondent gave a lesson on spelling that lasted approximately an hour longer than it should have. Respondent also failed to give her students a pretest to determine whether the spelling lesson was even necessary. The external review by Ms. Bossard was consistent with the observations made by Ms. Hurns as to deficiencies in the Respondent's job performance. Ms. Bossard concluded that Respondent was wasting the time of her students. Ms. Bossard observed that Respondent appeared to be very wide-eyed and disoriented. On April 19, 1993, a CFR was held with Respondent at the Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards to address her unacceptable performance in the classroom, her insubordination in the form of her continued noncompliance with directives relating to her assigned prescriptive activities, and her excessive absences and chronic tardiness. At this CFR, Respondent was again directed to comply with previous administrative directives, and was informed that such compliance had become a condition of her continued employment. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, Respondent had been absent at least 59 days and had been tardy on at least 31 occasions. Despite being specifically told to do so, Respondent frequently failed to call the school and inform school administrators that she would either be absent or tardy. Although Respondent was chronically absent from the work site, she failed to provide lesson plans for substitute teachers. Respondent's persistent absenteeism, failure to provide lesson plans, and lack of assessment of students' work had a detrimental impact on the students assigned to her classroom. As a result of Respondent's continued unacceptable classroom performance, her failure to remediate her deficiencies and her failure to comply with administrative directives, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation by Ms. Hurns. Ms. Hurns submitted a recommendation that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Ms. Hurns had intended to hold a CFR with Respondent to address her unacceptable annual evaluation, but Respondent was absent from school for an extended period of time and the CFR was not held. On July 7, 1993, Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment on the grounds of gross insubordination and incompetency and instituted these proceedings to terminate her continuing contract. Petitioner established that there was a continuing refusal to comply with administrative directives by Respondent and that she failed to abide by procedures for maintaining adequate grading of the work of her students, did not provide appropriate lesson plans, and failed to take advantage of the prescriptive activities assigned for her performance improvement. Respondent's considerable and excessive absences from the classroom and her failure to provide lesson plans and properly grade students' work resulted in a failure to communicate with and relate to her students to such an extent that Respondent failed to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Despite the fact that Respondent was given ample opportunities to correct her behavior, she constantly and intentionally refused to obey direct orders to contact administrators when she was going to be absent or tardy, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to maintain grades for her students. Ms. Hurns and the other administrators involved in evaluating Respondent's performance, took reasonable measures to communicate directly with Respondent about her classroom deficiencies and her attendance. At the formal hearing, Respondent testified that she became confused and disoriented and conceded that she had difficulty working. Respondent introduced evidence in an attempt to establish that her poor job performance was caused by medical problems. Under the Respondent's health care system, Respondent was required to obtain a referral for health care services from her primary physician who was, at the times pertinent hereto, Dr. Olive Chung-James. Dr. Chung-James saw Respondent several times starting in February 1993, for various symptoms and illnesses. In May 1993, Dr. Chung-James, who had been treating Respondent for respiratory problems and vomiting, recommended that Respondent seek psychological counselling because she thought the Respondent was stressed out. After the suspension of her employment in July 1993, Respondent met by coincidence a certified psychologist named Lani Kaskel. Respondent called Dr. Kaskel several times before she was able to arrange an appointment. Because Respondent had not been referred to Dr. Kaskel by Dr. Chung-James, the Respondent's health insurance did not pay for her visit to Dr. Kaskel. When Dr. Kaskel examined the Respondent, the Respondent was in a weak condition, somewhat disoriented, and clearly depressed. Respondent was seeking help and appeared overwhelmed. Dr. Kaskel suggested to Respondent that she might have an organic feature to the depression she was experiencing and referred her to Luis Escovar, a clinical psychologist who had been approved by Respondent's insurance plan. Respondent was referred to Dr. Kenneth Fischer, who is board certified in neurology by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Dr. Fischer's records reflects that Respondent presented herself with a history of personality disorder and headaches. Dr. Fischer conducted a series of tests to determine if there was a physical cause for the headaches she was experiencing, including a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) test, which was abnormal. The MRI revealed an area of the brain with decreased density which was interpreted by the consulting radiologist to be a low-grade tumor. Following his examination of the Respondent, Dr. Fischer was of the opinion that Respondent had either an ischemic process stroke or a brain tumor. His tests were inconclusive, and he could not testify that Respondent's poor performance and her failure to follow directives were attributable to organic causes. Respondent testified that during the 1992-93 school year she got behind in her work and she had trouble finishing her work and the prescriptions mandated by the school administrators. She testified that she did not willfully fail to meet the performance expectations, but that she could not do so because she was ill. Dr. Luis Escovar, a psychologist who treated the Respondent and who performed a series of psychological testing, expressed the opinion that on February 14, 1994, the Respondent was physically and mentally able to return to her employment as a classroom teacher. Respondent asserts that Respondent's poor classroom performance was due to an illness and that she should have been placed on sick leave. Respondent's assertion is rejected for two reasons. First, the medical testimony is speculative and does not establish that Respondent's poor job performance and failure to follow directives were caused by a stroke or by a brain tumor. Second, while Respondent testified that she sought sick leave, she offered no evidence as to whom this request was made, the date the request was made, the duration of the leave requested, the manner in which the leave was requested, or any other circumstances of the request. In light of the many offers of assistance that were made to the Respondent, which she repeatedly declined, it is found that Respondent did not establish that she made a proper request for sick leave that was refused by the administrators of Palm Springs. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which terminates the Respondent's continuing contract of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 28th day of July 1994.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3) (d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact A. 1. One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. 2. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and “unacceptable”; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.! A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. 3. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "setisfactory” and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) anda follow-up, “for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. 4, In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. 5. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is provided a PGT and given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. 6. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFBE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teecher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. 7, The performance probation could end early, before 90 days have passed. This occurs when, during probation, the teacher is deemed to have mastered all the required indicators. At that point, should it come, the teacher receives a satisfactory performance rating, and the evaluative process is terminated. 8. ‘Within 14 days after the end of probation, assuming the process has not ended sooner as just described, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. 9. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators. The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. 10. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "TL,A.1." 11. Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.” Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.? B. 12. At all times material to this case, Respondent Leopoldo Mutis ("Mutis") was a teacher in the District. From 1999 until April 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Mutis taught middle school Spanish and ESOL at Key Biscayne K-8 Center ("Key Biscayne"). 13. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Mutis in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator October 23, 2003 Ana Maria Rasco, Principal, Key Biscayne November 17, 2003 Ms. Rasco January 13, 2004 Blanca Herrera-Torres, Assistant Principal, Key Biscayne February 18, 2004 Cathy Williams, Assistant Principal, Key Biscayne March 15, 2004 Ms. Rasco 14. The Board contends that Mutis failed ali five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation for the record, the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Mutis had failed: Ti-lt-05 Gl-1s-08 02-18-06 G3-15-04 ; | | x | O1-13-04 [ TvEt_[ vat ver Ti-17-03 CU td 04 x | x [x 2-28-08 03-15-04 x 15. Because Ms. Rasco identified five performance deficiencies on November 17, 2003, Mutis was placed on 90-day performance probation, effective November 26, 2003, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Ms. Rasco held a CFR on November 25, 2003, to review with Mutis the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Mutis was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a "Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP)," dated November 26, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Ms. Rasco charged Mutis with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: IV.A.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.2, VI.C.2, and VI.C.4. (These five indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Mutis was given a PIP, anc a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. 16. Following the confirmatory evaluation on March 15, 20C4, based on which Ms. Rasco identified 13 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Ms. Rasco notified the superintendent thet Mutis had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Mutis's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Ms. Rasco's recommendation and notified Mutis, by letter dated March 31, 2004, of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Mutis's employment contract. On April 14, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. Cc. 17. In general terms, the ultimate issue in this case, according to Section 1012.33(3) (d)2.b., Florida Statutes, is whether Mutis corrected noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation. In view of the issue, the initial "of record" evaluation of November 17, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the five "noted performance deficiencies" that Mutis needed to correct.’ Indeed, the Board cannot terminate Mutis's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation, but rather must focus exclusively on those five particular deficiencies which Mutis was given 90 calendar days to correct, for reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law. Stated more precisely, then, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the five specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Mutis on November 26, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. 18. The two evaluations that were conducted during Mutis's probation (on January 13, 2004, and February 18, 2004) are of present interest mainly because they show Mutis making steady progress toward eliminating the noted deficiencies. By January 13, 2004, according to Ms. Herrera-Torres, Mutis had corrected three of the five noted deficiencies (Indicators IV.A.3, VI.C.2, and VI.C.4), leaving just two (Indicators IV.A.5 and V.B.2). When Ms. Williams evaluated Mutis on February 18, 2004, she found that the teacher had corrected four of the five noted performance deficiencies, failing him only on Indicator IV.A.5. 19. The evidence presented at hearing is insufficient, however, to support findings that Mutis was, in fact, deficient 10 with respect to (a) Indicators IV.A.5 and V.B.2 as determined by Ms. Herrera-Torres or (b) Indicator IV.A.5 as determined by Ms. Williams. As for the evaluation of January 13, 2004, it is found that the purpose of the learning task observed by Ms. Herrera-Torres that day was obviously to teach students rules relating to gender identification in the Spanish language. Thus, Indicator IV.A.5, which requires that the purpose or importance of learning tasks be clear to learners, was met. Regarding Indicator V.B.2, which requires that wait time be used as appropriate to enhance the development of thinking skills, Ms. Herrera-Torres gave no testimony at hearing; and, her cor.temporaneous written summary of Mutis's alleged deficiency in this area merely states, in conclusory fashion, that Mutis afforded students insufficient “wait time to think and develop answers to questions." A subjective opinion, devoid of facts, is not enough to justify an ultimate determination of insufficient performance in this regard. 20. As for the evaluation of February 18, 2004, it is found that Mutis informed the class observed by Ms. Williams that he intended to review a previous lesson or lessons. Having told his students that the purpose of the learning task was review, Mutis satisfied Indicator IV.A.5. 21. Thus, based on the evidence presented, it is found that Mutis's performance probation in connection with the five 11 noted deficiencies should have been terminated on January 14, 2004, or February 18, 2004, at the latest.° 22. As it happened, however, Mutis’s probation was not prematurely terminated, and Ms. Rasco performed a confirmatory evaluation on March 15, 2004. She found that Mutis had corrected two of the five noted performance deficiencies, giving Mutis a passing grade on Indicators IV.A.3 and VI.C.2. The remaining three deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "@" symbcl. It is to these three allegedly uncorrected deficiencies thet our attention now must turn. 23. The Board contends, based on Ms. Rasco's confirmatory evaluation of March 15, 2004, that Mutis was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: IV.A.5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. V.B.2: Wait time is used as appropriate to enhance the development of thinking skills. vI.C.4: Learners receive specific feedback when learning tasks and/or learning outcomes are completed. 24. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Muzis's performance on March 15, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Mutis failed adequately to perform the three 12 indicators just mentioned—consists of Ms. Rasco's testimony, together with a memorandum dated March 15, 2004, that Ms. Rasco prepared for Assistant Superintendent Essie Pace. 25. At the final hearing, Ms. Rasco recounted what she had seen on March 14, 2004, when she observed Mutis in the classroom for 50 minutes: [1] This lesson—this lesson was atrocious. [2] First of all, Mr. Mutis walked into class three minutes late, the children were already seated in class. [3] When he walked in late, and I found this particularly offensive to the students because Mr. Mutis had been free for the two periods prior, this was fourth period, he had been free during second and third period so for him to have come in late was very difficult for me to understand. [4] Secondly, he was unprepared. He did not have his lesson plans readily available. He had to rummage through the stacks of papers on his desk to find his lesson plans. [5] This was a Monday morning, he had been out Friday, and he had proceeded to teach the lesson that the children had already done on Friday with the substitute. [6] Several students started to complain they could not understand why they had to repeat the lesson that they had already done on Friday, he was asking them to read some pages from a story, and they kept on explaining to him that they had already done it. He didn't explain to the children his rationale for doing—-for having them do it again, he just went through the lesson. 13 [7] There was an inordinate amount of off- task behavior. There was one student——and in this class there were maybe seven or eight students, this was a small class, there was one student who spent a long time catapulting a pen. There was another student who had birthday balloons attached to the back of her chair, and she was playing with the birthday balloons, fidgeting with the balloons for an extended period of time. [8] There was another student who was doing his writing assignment on a little, must have been a little five, maybe, a five by eight sheet of paper even though he told the students at the beginning of the lesson to take out their folders, this child was writing on a small piece of paper, and he didn’t address it. [9] Q. Did he address any of that off-task behavior? [10] A. He did not address any of these behaviors, he did not redirect the students at any point and time. [11] Again, the questioning techniques, he was asking questions without, again, any regard to the student responses, without probing. 12] Some students, I think, were speaking in Spanish, and, again, this was an English lesson, and yet they were never redirected to the English language. This one was just— 13] Q. They were in his class to learn English? [14] A. This was an English class. Students were not given any feedback. Sometimes he asked questions, if he didn't get a response he would answer, he would 14 answer the question himself and go to the next question. is Q. Could you tell whether he appeared to care about the class? 16 A. No, it's like he had given up. 17 Q. Do children react to that? 18 A. Children were definitely reacting [19] Q. His children were? 20} A. Yes, I mean, he was not getting any cooperation or engagement from the children. Final Hearing Transcript at 74-76 (numbering added) . 26. In her contemporaneous memorandum of March 15, 2004, which supplements and explains the foregoing testimony, Ms. Rasco stated in relevant part as follows: A chronology of observations and results for the above employee is provided for your review. Data indicate that this employee has not demonstrated corrective action. Of particular concern during the confirmatory observation in Seventh/Eighth Grades Language Arts Through ESOL was: II.A.1 The teacher entered the classroom three minutes after the bell signaling the beginning of fourth period had rung. The learners had already entered the classroom. The teacher did not have his lesson plans readily available and had to take time to locate them. There was no rationale for not being prepared since the teacher did not have students in his class during second or third period. 15 TII.B.4 At the beginning of the lesson when the teacher instructed the learners to turn to pages 162-163, three different learners told the teacher they had already read those pages with the substitute teacher on Friday. The learners did not understand why they had to repeat the assignment and the teacher did not give them any reason for repeating the lesson. V.A.1 When learners attempted to develop associations using their own experiences, the teacher curtailed this experience by allowing interruptions from other learners and letting several learners speak at the same time. V.C.1 No concepts that required critical analysis or problem-solving were developed. For example, the teacher asked, "Why is it important to learn about people who have difficulties in life?" He did not get a response and proceeded to ask, "Should everyone learn sign language?" V1.A.2 Learner engagement was not monitored. There were numerous instances of off-task behavior throughout the lesson which the teacher did not address. One learner was catapulting a pen, second learner was daydreaming and not following along as others read orally, a third learner was fidgeting with her birthday balloons, and a fourth learner was writing on a 3"x8" sheet of paper instead of her notebook as the teacher had initially instructed. The teacher never re-directed the off-task behaviors during the lesson. v1l.C.4 At various points throughout the lesson, several learners made comments and responded to questions in Spanish. At no time did the teacher redirect the responses to English, assist the learners in making their comments in English, or provide feedback. 16 27. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Mutis's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing evidence, for that is all the proof there is on the subject.® 28. Ms. Rasco did not explain how she had applied the PACES indicators to her classroom observations of Mutis to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. 29. The three indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not so much standards upon which to base a judgment as factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. Ifa particular indicator-condition (e.g- the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." 30. But the indicator-conditions are not objective facts, equally perceivable by all observers; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical (or observed) facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called 17 "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions” of law and fact. 31. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Ms. Rasco observed on March 15, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Mutis's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the purpose of learning tasks was "clear" to the students (Indicator IV.A.5),/ or whether “wait time" was used appropriately to enhance "thinking skills" (Indicator V.B.2).° This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. 32. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of 18 the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across-~- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. 33. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be stendards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to provide specific feedback upon the conclusion of learning tasks (Indicator VI.C.4) or to enhance the development of thinking skills through appropriate use of wait time (Indicator V.B.2).° 34. Other standards might be definitional. For example, definitions of terms such as "wait time” and "thinking skills" would facilitate the application of Indicator V.B.2. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether wait time enhances the development of thinking skills. 35. However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- 19 conditions are present or absent in a given situation-—and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. 36. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the three relevant indicators were extant in Mutis's classroom on March 15, 2004, or not. E. 37. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Mutis had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. As mentioned, the only evidence of Mutis's post-probation teaching performance consists of Ms. Rasco's testimony about her observation of Mutis for 50 minutes on March 15, 2004, which was quoted above, along with her contemporaneous memorandum to Ms. Pace. 38. Ms. Rasco's contemporaneous memorandum sheds light on her testimony by clarifying which of the indicators was implicated by particular observations. Not much of this 20 evidence, as will be shown below, is relevant to Mutis's performance in relation to the three indicators on which termination could be based. (The discussion that follows refers to che numbered answers as quoted in paragraph 25 supra.) 39. Answers 2, 3, and 4 pertain to purported deficiencies with regard to Indicator II.A.1.*° Having been rated unsatisfactory in this area for the first time on March 15, 2004, Mutis cannot be fired for these alleged deficiencies. This testimony, therefore, is irrelevant. 40. Answers 5 and 6 relate to alleged deficiencies with respect to Indicator III.B.4.*' Having been rated unsatisfactory in this area for the first time on March 15, 2004, Mutis cannot be fired for these alleged deficiencies. This testimony, therefore, is irrelevant. 41. Answers 7, 8, and 10 relate to alleged deficiencies pertaining to Indicator VI.A.2.° Having been rated unsatisfactory in this area for the first time on March 15, 2004, Mutis cannot be fired for these alleged deficiencies. This testimony, therefore, is irrelevant. 42. Answers 16, 18, and 20 were not clearly associated with any particular deficiency. The undersigned finds this testimony unhelpful in determining whether Mutis was unsatisfactorily performing in the areas of Indicators IV.A.5, V.B.2, or VI.C.4. 21 43. Answer 1 is simply a conclusion, which the undersigned finds unhelpful as a basis for independent fact-finding. 44. This leaves Answers 12 and 14, which relate to alleged deficiencies in Indicator VI.C.4, which is a noted performance deficiency upon which termination could be based. The thrust of this testimony is that Mutis addressed some students in Spanish, rather than English. Even if Mutis did this, however, such does not implicate the Indicator in question, which is concerned with the provision of specific feedback upon the completion of learning tasks or outcomes, because Indicator VI.C.4 is silent as to the means of communication. Beyond that, Ms. Rasco offered the naked conclusion that Mutis failed to provide feedback, which merely tells the undersigned how to rule and her.ce is unhelpful. 45. In sum, the evidence is insufficient for the undersigned to find, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Mutis's performance on March 15, 2004, was deficient with regard to Indicators IV.A.5, V.B.2, and VI.C.4. 46. As important as the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Mutis's performance on March 15, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Mutis's 22 classroom that day, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Mutis's performance, to determine whether the indicator-conditions were met or not. 47. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and thus it would be unfair to apply them to Mutis.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 For Respondent: Leopoldo Mutis, pro se 4001 North 67th Terrace Hollywood, Florida 33024
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Mutis of all charges brought against him in this preceeding; (b) providing that Mutis be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Mutis back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2004. 37
The Issue Should Respondent be dismissed from her employment with Petitioner School Board for "professional incompetency as set forth in Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act" (Ch. 21197, Laws of Florida, 1941, as amended by Chs. 70-671, 72-576, and 81-372, Laws of Florida).
Findings Of Fact For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner Duval County School Board is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administrating the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act as cited above. Respondent Clementine Johnson is a certificated and tenured teacher pursuant to the provisions of that Teacher Tenure Act. She has been employed by Petitioner at all times relevant. The charging document only covers the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school years. During the 1992-1993 school year, Respondent was assigned to Ed White High School. During the 1993-1994 school year, Respondent was assigned to Arlington Middle School. Ronnel Poppell was the principal at Ed White High School during the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 school years. He has been an employee of the Duval County School Board for 34 years. During the last 17 years of that time, he has served as a school principal at various schools. He holds a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree and is certificated in Physical Education and Health and in Administration Supervision. At the time of the hearing herein, he was the immediate past president of the Florida Association of School Administrators and a member of the assessment team that prepared the Duval County School System's current assessment instruments. During the 1991-1992 school year, which is not directly in issue in this case, Respondent worked at Ed White High School under Mr. Poppell's supervision. During that year, Respondent was an Inside School Suspension Teacher and as such was not responsible for delivering instruction as that term is normally understood. Mr. Poppell gave Respondent a satisfactory evaluation for her performance as an Inside School Suspension Teacher during the 1991-1992 school year. Prior to the beginning of the 1992-1993 school year, Respondent voluntarily changed assignments in order to avoid being reassigned to another school as part of a staff reduction. Respondent's duties for the 1992-1993 school year consisted of teaching classes in business education and teaching classes in peer counseling. Respondent was certificated in the area of business instruction and thus qualified on paper to teach those types of classes. Mr. Poppell observed Respondent in the classroom on 10 to 12 occasions during the 1992-1993 school year. His observations were memorialized in a series of notes which were ultimately reduced to typed form. At each observation, Mr. Poppell found a number of deficiencies in Petitioner's performance, although the same, precise problems did not occur each time. The most serious problem was always in the area of classroom management and discipline. Mr. Poppell observed unruly student behavior on virtually every occasion that he visited Respondent's classroom. He observed continual bickering between students. One time, a textbook was thrown across the room. Mr. Poppell also observed inappropriate and inconsistent instruction by Respondent in that the same lesson was taught on successive days rather than new material being introduced on a progressive basis. Mr. Poppell observed that significant destruction had been done to School Board property. While he did not always observe all the acts that damaged classroom equipment, he clearly observed that significant damage had been done to typewriters and to chairs as well as graffiti written on desks. Jane B. Friedlin was the School Board's Supervisor of Business Administration during the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school years. Ms. Friedlin has a Bachelor's Degree in Business Education and a Master's Degree in Educational Leadership (formerly Administration Supervision). She has taught business education at the high school and business college levels and has written business education textbooks. She has been involved in the business education field the majority of the last 33 years. At Mr. Poppell's request, Ms. Friedlin observed two of Respondent's classes on November 17, 1992. Her observations from that date were memorialized in a memorandum to Mr. Poppell dated November 18, 1992. Ms. Friedlin observed that Respondent was not in control of her class with all students on task at any time. The students displayed a total lack of respect for Respondent. Instruction was scanty, hard to follow, and in some cases incorrect or incomplete. Several students threw paper, one student made chicken sounds without being reprimanded, and students talked during the entire period. Mr. Poppell discussed his observations with the Respondent on three separate occasions: October 7, 1992, November 18, 1992 and January 6, 1993. Despite Mr. Poppell's conferences with Respondent, her performance did not materially improve. Respondent failed to turn in seating charts to Mr. Poppell in order to determine which students were responsible for the damage, as requested by Mr. Poppell. By memorandum of January 19, 1993, Respondent protested the observation and involvement of Ms. Friedman. In order to assist Respondent in improving her techniques and performance, Mr. Poppell made arrangements for her to observe peer counseling classes taught by other teachers at Ed White High School and for her to visit similar classes at three other high schools. She did this and also attended an in-service workshop. On March 15, 1993, Mr. Poppell completed an "Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher" for Respondent for the 1992-93 school year. That evaluation showed Respondent to be unsatisfactory in five of the eight competencies rated therein and unsatisfactory overall. Mr. Poppell had read Ms. Friedlin's memorandum and considered the contents of that memorandum as part of his evaluation of Respondent's performance. Respondent signed the evaluation and the Classroom Observation Instrument (COI) upon which the evaluation was based. Pursuant to Section 4(e) (2) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Respondent transferred to Arlington Middle School for the 1993-1994 school year. She also took a summer course between the school years. Dr. Jordan E. Baker, Sr. was the Principal of Arlington Middle School during the 1993-1994 school year. Dr. Baker holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Master of Education Degree, a Specialist in Education Degree, and a Doctor of Philosophy Degree. He has been employed by the Duval County School Board for a total of 30 years, including three years as a Principal, seven years as a Vice- Principal, and two years as an Assistant Principal. Pursuant to Section 4(e) (3) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Dr. Baker met with Respondent in order to develop a plan to afford Respondent the opportunity for specific in-service training to correct the alleged deficiencies in her performance. Dr. Baker met with Respondent on August 18, 1993 and August 27, 1993 to develop this plan, which Dr. Baker referred to as a "Success Plan". During the course of the conferences on August 18, 1993 and August 27, 1993, Dr. Baker observed no recognition on Respondent's part that her teaching performance was deficient or that she was in need of assistance in improving that performance. Dr. Baker informally observed the Respondent's classes on several occasions between September 24, 1993 and October 18, 1993. Dr. Baker's notes concerning those observations were subsequently reduced to typed form. During those observations, Dr. Baker detected fundamental problems with the Respondent's classroom management. Respondent's classes were not focused on the academic assignments. The students acted in a disruptive manner throughout each of his observations. Dr. Baker also observed that the classroom environment itself was deteriorating in terms of furniture and equipment being destroyed. Dr. Baker became concerned over the safety hazard not only to the students but to the Respondent due to the conduct of students in turning off lights and throwing textbooks and other objects. Dr. Baker conducted formal observations of Respondent's teaching performance on October 26 and 27, 1993. Those observations were conducted at different times of the day and with different classes of students. Again, Dr. Baker noted major problems with classroom management and with students' disrespect for Respondent. He noted that the students were confused about what was expected of them and did not understand Respondent's directions. Dr. Baker memorialized his observations on these two dates in two Classroom Observation Instruments (COI). Shortly thereafter, Dr. Baker met for an hour with Respondent to discuss her progress and his observations. Dr. Baker suggested to Respondent that the "Success Plan" be revised to help Respondent be more comfortable with what was expected of her. He suggested that Respondent needed to visit other schools to observe other teachers' performances and that she take workshops. Because Respondent indicated that she had done those things in the past and saw no need to do so again, Dr. Baker neither offered nor arranged further assistance of these types. Again, Dr. Baker observed Respondent's lack of recognition of, and denial of, the existence of the problem. On November 4, 1993, Dr. Baker was called to the music suite because of a fire which had been set by two of Respondent's students. On that occasion, Respondent was able to provide Dr. Baker with little or no information concerning what happened or who was responsible. Dr. Baker memorialized this occurrence in a written Incident Report and in a narrative. Further investigation showed that the students were referred to the office by Respondent for discipline. They forged a punishment assignment on the teacher's copy and set fire to the original referral slip outside the window of her classroom in the band room, with resultant smoke and pandemonium in all classes in that area. As a result of this incident, Dr. Baker became even more concerned about safety. He expressed his concerns in a November 10, 1993 memorandum to Dr. Alvin White, Assistant Superintendent, requesting that Respondent be removed from the classroom for her safety and that of the students assigned to her classes. That request was denied. During the course of the 1993-1994 school year, Dr. Baker received a number of Student Accident Reports and Incident Investigation Forms concerning students being injured by thrown books, fights, and being tripped and injured in Respondent's classroom. Shirley Rodriquez was Vice Principal of Arlington Middle School during the 1993-1994 school year. Ms. Rodriquez has a Bachelor's Degree in Business Education and a Master's Degree in Educational Leadership. She has been employed by the Duval County School Board for a total of 19 years, three of them as Vice-Principal. She has completed the Duval County School Board Principal Preparation Training Course. Respondent first came to Ms. Rodriquez's attention due to accident and injury reports and reports of noise, confusion, and lack of safety in Respondent's classroom from surrounding teachers in the band area where Respondent's business education lab was located. Through an October 18, 1993 memorandum from Chuck McKenny, the Assistant Principal for Community Education, Ms. Rodriquez became aware of problems with the condition of the typewriters and textbooks in Respondent's class. She accompanied Mr. McKenny to Respondent's classroom and found numerous typewriter parts on the floor and in the trash cans. She gathered up the parts and kept them in the school vault. She had not received any reports from the prior year's business education teacher concerning any problem with the typewriters nor any complaints from the Respondent prior to being made aware of this problem by Mr. McKenny. Ms. Rodriquez observed Respondent's classroom performance on October 21, 1993 for part of a 50 minute classroom period, approximately 33 minutes. She found that Respondent's class was not an atmosphere conducive to learning, that a number of students were talking while the Respondent was talking, and that the students were generally off-task. One student was playing with a chair part which he had removed from his chair. On October 27, 1993, Ms. Rodriquez and Michael S. Kemp were summoned to Respondent's classroom by students in need of assistance. Michael S. Kemp was one of the Assistant Principals for Student Services at Arlington Middle School during the 1993-1994 school year. Mr. Kemp has a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration and a Master's Degree in Teaching and Educational Leadership. He is currently enrolled in the Doctoral Program at the University of North Florida. He has worked for the Duval County School Board for six years. Arriving in Respondent's classroom on October 27, 1993, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Kemp observed students running around the room, one student throwing a dictionary across the room, and a couple of students hiding under desks to avoid being hit with books. Respondent was taking no action to stop these activities. After Mr. Kemp and Ms. Rodriquez entered the classroom and Mr. Kemp demanded order, the students settled down in approximately 15 to 20 seconds. Several children complained of having been hit in various portions of their bodies by books and/or pencils that had been thrown. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Kemp memorialized this incident in separate memoranda, each dated October 27, 1993. In response to calls from Dr. Baker, the Principal, and Ms. Rodriquez, the Vice-Principal, Supervisor of Business Education Jane B. Friedlin again observed Respondent for a total of one hour and thirty minutes on November 9, 1993. Ms. Friedlin again noted that Respondent did not have control of her class and that she had very poor rapport with her students. Ms. Friedlin also noted misspelled words on posters in the classroom and noted that Respondent mispronounced a number of words and committed grammatical errors. Ms. Friedlin memorialized these observations in a Classroom Observation Instrument (COI) dated November 10, 1993 and in a narrative memorandum of that date. At formal hearing, Respondent put forth that the posters were purchased at her own expense and were not made by her, but she did not explain any satisfactory reason for allowing them to remain on display without correction. In Ms. Friedlin's professional opinion offered at formal hearing, the problem areas with Respondent's performance at Arlington Middle School were consistent with those she had observed in Respondent at Ed White High School the prior year but Respondent's overall performance had gotten worse. During the early part of 1994, Dr. Baker continued to observe Respondent on an informal basis and to discuss her problems with her. Again, he observed that Respondent was in denial concerning the deficiencies in her performance and the necessity to make improvements. Ms. Rodriguez observed disturbances similar to those of October 27, 1993 in Respondent's classroom on January 7, 1994 and January 11, 1994. On January 7, 1994, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Kemp went to Respondent's classroom in response to a call for assistance. Ms. Rodriguez discovered that one student had switched off the class lights on two occasions. This had triggered episodes of throwing textbooks across the room. At least one student was struck on the head by a textbook. Ms. Rodriguez memorialized this event in writing. On January 11, 1994, Ms. Rodriquez went to Respondent's classroom in response to a request from a security officer. Ms. Rodriquez found the classroom littered with paper. Respondent indicated that her home-room students had begun throwing paper and this behavior carried on into subsequent classes. Ms. Rodriguez memorialized this event in writing. On January 11, 1994, Dr. Baker provided Respondent with a letter expressing his continuing concern about her performance and his continuing willingness to work with her in developing another Success Plan and in providing her with assistance, such as the use of District level staff, to improve her performance. Dr. Baker also gave Respondent advance warning that he would be conducting another formal observation of her teaching prior to March 1, 1994. Ms. Rodriquez again observed Respondent's teaching performance on February 23, 1994, when she spent approximately 47 minutes of one class period in Respondent's classroom. Ms. Rodriguez again observed students talking while Respondent attempted to explain the lesson. Respondent's instructions were unclear. Little or no teacher-directed instruction occurred. Ms. Rodriguez memorialized these observations in a March 3, 1994 Classroom Observation Instrument (COI). According to Ms. Rodriguez, Respondent's performance as a teacher had deteriorated between her observation on October 21, 1993 and her observation on February 23, 1994, partly because Respondent most recently projected an attitude of defeat and was simply trying to get through the day. In Ms. Rodriquez's opinion based upon her education, training, and experience and her observation and contacts with Respondent, Respondent's teaching performance was incompetent. Bennie Floyd-Peoples was one of the Assistant Principals for Student Services at Arlington Middle School during the 1993-1994 school year. Ms. Peoples has a Bachelor's Degree in Home Economics, a Master's Degree in Home Economics with emphasis on early childhood education, a Master's Degree in teaching, and has taken course work in the area of educational leadership. She is certified in the Florida Performance Measurement System and is a trainer in that program. She has been employed by the Duval County School Board for a total of five years and has served as Assistant Principal for Student Services at Arlington Middle School during the last three years. Ms. Peoples went to the Respondent's classroom on 15 to 20 occasions during the 1993-1994 school year. On each occasion, Ms. Peoples observed a consistent pattern of classroom disruption, students being disrespectful and defiant to Respondent, students throwing paper, students walking around the classroom idly, and students arguing with each other. Ms. Peoples memorialized her observations in two memoranda to Principal Baker, dated October 14, 1993 and February 17, 1994 respectively. On February 24, 1994, Dr. Baker informed Respondent in writing that he would be conducting his formal observation on February 25, 1994 On February 25, 1994, Dr. Baker conducted a formal observation of the Respondent's classroom performance. In Dr. Baker's opinion, Respondent's performance continued to be unsatisfactory. While he did notice slight improvement in the area of knowledge of subject matter, he also noted a decline in Respondent's willingness to assume non-instructional responsibilities, such as due care of the equipment entrusted to her. The "Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher" which Dr. Baker completed on March 7, 1994 showed Respondent to be unsatisfactory in seven of the eight competencies rated therein and unsatisfactory overall. Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form. Dr. Baker continued to be concerned about the safety of Respondent and her students. He again expressed these concerns in a March 23, 1994 memorandum to Dr. Alvin White, Assistant Superintendent. Based upon Dr. Baker's recommendation, Respondent was removed from the classroom shortly thereafter. In Dr. Baker's opinion based upon his education, training, and experience, his personal observations of Respondent's performance, and the information related to him by his staff and others, Respondent was incompetent as a classroom teacher during the 1993-94 school year. In Dr. Baker's opinion, Respondent was afforded the opportunity of specific in-service training to correct the alleged deficiencies in her performance, but most, if not all offers of assistance, were refused. Dr. Baker's testimony to this effect and the supporting exhibits are accepted over Respondent's protests at formal hearing that she would have accepted more workshops if they were guaranteed to be during school hours and a substitute provided. Respondent attributed a portion of her problems with classroom management at Arlington Middle School to the students being "a little unusual than they had been for the previous years" and as being motivated by "another spirit . . . making them do it". Respondent also attributed a portion of her problems to physical deficiencies in her classroom at Arlington Middle School. The classroom was physically located between the band and chorus rooms. She testified that the classroom was "very noisy," that the room "sits into something like a hole," that the room had "something like an echo to it," and that the skylights in the room were closed off, which caused "strange things" to happen in the room. Respondent is a very devout Christian and speaks and writes with considerable religiosity. From the evidence as a whole, it appears that, in secular terms, Respondent felt that her Arlington Middle School classroom was inferior acoustically and had bad lighting, that the students' access to the light switch was uncontrollable, and that her lack of experience with middle school children, especially sixth graders who are more rowdy than the more mature high school students she was used to contributed to the discipline problems she had throughout the 1993-1994 school year. She also attributed student misbehavior to "toe tapping" caused by the music and noted that being an observer and monitor of indoor suspension had not fully prepared her for actually teaching the classes she was assigned at Arlington Middle School. She also believed sincerely that the damage to equipment occurring in the 1992-1993 school year at Ed White High School occurred during the times other teachers were in charge of the same classroom or occurred overnight when the room was used by others and that the damage to equipment at Arlington Middle School "just happened" because it was old and the students were rowdy. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the equipment damage in both schools could not have occurred at any time other than during Respondent's periods of responsibility. Despite some rumor of an ancient accidental death which caused the skylight of her classroom at Arlington Middle School to have been boarded up long ago, the room itself had been effectively used by other teachers. These other teachers experienced no unsolvable discipline problems, and they were able to function effectively with the same lighting and acoustics that perturbed Respondent. The greater weight of the credible evidence is that there was nothing inherently unusual or noisy about Respondent's classroom at Arlington Middle School and that if the band or chorus was heard through the adjoining walls on occasion, it was not loud enough to interfere with effective teaching. Overall, Respondent's classes represented an accurate cross-section of the students in the school. It may be inferred therefrom that Respondent received students no more predisposed to rowdiness than any others of their age group. In two of Respondent's classes, she received a new group of students four times a year. In the other three classes, she received a new group of students twice a year. It may be inferred therefrom that on each of these rotations, she had an opportunity to "start over" with a fair cross-section of students, untainted by whatever had gone wrong in her classroom in the previous grading period. The disciplinary problems experienced by Respondent were unique in both nature and degree from those presented by the same students in other classes under other teachers. She was certificated in the areas she was assigned to teach, and she should have been able to handle the classes assigned her. Respondent also seemed to attribute a portion of her problems to a conspiracy toward her, testifying that "it was a schemer towards me"; that Dr. Baker is her enemy; and that a student named James lied about her and then brought her a number of treats (which she accepted) because "his conscious must have bothered him really bad". Her opinion on these issues is unsupported. Respondent showed that at Arlington Middle School she had established a work program whereby her students rotated every ten days through other parts of the school to receive "grades" or commentaries on their performances by other instructional and administrative personnel and that most of the comments received were good. This learning experience was an optional part of the curriculum which she devised. It involved such things as students assisting with shelving books in the library or doing minor clerical work in the school office. Although the experience may have been valuable to individual students in giving them exposure to a variety of work tasks, Respondent did not directly observe or grade their work, and this innovation was not shown to promote the required curriculum, particularly the typing curriculum. Respondent's students' good behavior for other school personnel outside her classroom also does not demonstrate Respondent's classroom management skills. Respondent admitted that some of the incidents testified to by Petitioner's witnesses and memorialized in the documentary evidence did occur, but she minimized them or did not recognize them as dangerous, as disruptive to the educational process, or as her responsibility. For example, Respondent testified that, "There was cases in my classroom where books was thrown when he cut the light off, but it wasn't that many time. I mean three or four times." Similarly, in discussing an incident where a student named "Waled" had chipped his tooth during a classroom disturbance, Respondent testified "Things like that happen in the classroom." She took no responsibility for students setting a fire outside her classroom window (see Findings of Fact 29-30). She took no responsibility for students lifting her wig off her head in the hallway on the way back from lunch and playing with the wig with resultant noise and disorder. She felt she was not in control of the latter situation and that children just do such things. She expressed herself as unable to control tardiness which disrupted class concentration and as never refusing a child who wanted a hall pass to go to the restroom, no matter how many students wanted to go there simultaneously. These instances of denial are, in themselves, evidence of her incompetence to teach. Petitioner participated in some of the observations of other teachers established by Mr. Poppell during the 1992-1993 school year, but no meaningful improvement in her performance could be measured. She was transferred to a different school in order to permit her improvement with a "fresh start." (See Findings of Fact 21-22). However, instead of improving, her classroom management deteriorated. Her memorandum to Mr. Poppell dated January 19, 1993 indicating that Jane Friedlin's visit to observe her at Ed White High School "wasn't welcome" (See Finding of Fact 17), her declining Mr. Baker's suggestion that at Arlington Middle School they proceed with Respondent observing other classes and attending workshops again in the 1993-1994 school year, and her comments at formal hearing that she did not acknowledge that there were correctable problems with her teaching confirm that further attempts to help her were made but did not improve the situation.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Duval County School Board discharging Respondent from her employment as a tenured teacher within the Duval County School System for incompetency. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 31st day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-4272 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: With minor fine-tuning and additional material to more closely conform to the competent, credible evidence as a whole, all of Petitioner's 57 proposed findings of fact are accepted. Respondent's PFOF dated November 21, 1994 (See "Preliminary Statement" for information on another rejected proposal). The paragraphs are numbered and are described as best the hearing officer can. First paragraph: rejected as introductory only. Indented paragraph: rejected as attempting to change finalized annual unsatisfactory evaluations to satisfactory. Also, rejected as not supported by the record. Next indented paragraph: rejected as not a finding of fact but as a request to be reinstated to employment at the highest administrative level now vacant. Next indented paragraph: rejected as not a finding of fact but as a prayer for money damages not provided for by statute or rule. Second regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. Next indented paragraph: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent evidence. Next indented paragraph: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent evidence or as a prayer for relief. Next indented paragraph: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent credible evidence. Third regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. Next indented paragraph: This is Respondent's complaint that she should have been allowed additional in-service workshops during the school day in both years. It is addressed as needed in Findings of Fact 22, 24, 25, 28, 56, and 71. Next indented paragraph: This is appears to complain of any standardized oversight of teachers and students by administrators and is rejected as mere opinion contrary to the authority of law. Next indented paragraph: This is replete with religiosity but is not even a complete sentence. It is rejected as incomprehensible. Next indented paragraph: Rejected as irrelevant and/or unproven. Next indented paragraph: This is Respondent's complaint that Dr. Baker was her enemy for reasons never specified. It is covered as needed in Finding of Fact 69. Fourth regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. Next indented paragraph: This is Respondent's assertion that her students passed or improved on standardized educational tests. Her assertion was not proven, and is not supported by the record. Therefore, this proposal is rejected. The topic is covered as needed in Finding of Fact 68. Fifth regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. Next indented paragraph: This is an accusation of perjury or a religious diatribe. In either case, it is unsupported by the record or by the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and is rejected. Sixth regular paragraph: This is either a prayer for relief, a Biblical reference, or both. Rejected as irrelevant argumentation. The final closing paragraph is conclusory only and rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Eckstine, Esquire 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Clementine Johnson 3104 West 12th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Dr. Larry Zenke, Superintendent Duval County School District 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8082
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the charges against Respondent, Joyce Kent Baldwin, in this case. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated due to two years of unsatisfactory and unacceptable performance.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, the Respondent, Robert Nolan, Jr., was employed as a seventh and eighth grade math teacher at Rockway Middle School ("Rockway"). Nolan has been employed by the School Board as a math teacher since the 1987/88 school year. The School Board has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, V., which provides: Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State and District Boards, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by the Rules of the State Department of Education. Article XI of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: Classroom teachers are required to develop weekly lesson plans which shall reflect one or more objectives, activities, homework assignments, and a way of monitoring student progress. Principals or supervising administrators may suggest, but not require, a particular format or organization. Only where a principal has documented deficiencies through classroom observation, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), may a teacher be required to use a set form in preparation of lesson plans. Article XIII, Introduction, B., of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: The parties agree to the continuation of a developmental approach to improving teaching performance, using the TADS. In accordance with Florida Statutes, no disciplinary action shall be taken, based on incompetence in the absence of documentation and procedures required by TADS. Article XIII, Section 2, of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: Any teacher whose performance is assessed unacceptable in any observation category shall be entitled to a plan of professional growth practices which shall include reason- able timeframes for implementation. . . Teachers shall follow the growth practices required. Failure to implement required professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was required shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Contract. Where an administrator has substantiated, through two formal observations, as stipulated above, that teaching is unaccep- table in any of the observation categories, DCPS may utilize diagnostic tests and assessment techniques to identify teaching weaknesses and strengths and to assist in selecting appropriate professional growth practices to improve teaching performance. . . Where teaching deficiencies are diagnosed as a result of tests or assessment techniques, DCPS shall require professional growth practices which shall be obligatory on the teacher. Respondent's employment history with the Petitioner includes numerous instances of unsatisfactory and deficient classroom performance reflecting an unwillingness or inability to fulfill his teaching duties and responsibilities. On June 2, 1993, Carole Abrams ("Abrams"), an assistant principal at Rockway at the time, reviewed Respondent's grade book and noticed that Respondent did not have complete grades for the four nine-week grading periods; Respondent was placed on notice that he was required to have a completed grade book by the end of the school year. Even though Respondent was directed to complete his grade book by the end of the school year and was offered assistance so that Respondent may complete his grade book, Respondent failed to complete his grade book as directed. On October 13, 1993, Abrams formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unacceptable in three categories of the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"): preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and techniques of instruction. At the time of the observation on October 13, 1993, Abrams concluded that Respondent was not following a particular lesson plan. When Abrams asked to see Respondent's lesson plans during the observation on October 13, 1993, Respondent produced lesson plans that were two years old and belonged to another teacher. During the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent appeared confused, spent the entire lesson on one mathematical problem, was not able to demonstrate to his students how to complete the problem mathematically, and was unable to accurately answer students' questions regarding the math problem. Respondent was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction due to his inability to answer students' questions, to demonstrate the mathematical process for arriving at the correct answer, or to address the necessary topics of the lesson that Respondent was attempting to give. As a result of Respondent's unacceptable classroom performance as demonstrated by the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent was placed on prescription and was provided with assistance and activities for his performance improvement. Part of Respondent's prescription required that Respondent provide weekly lesson plans, but Respondent failed to do so, even after receiving memoranda from Abrams reminding Respondent of this requirement. On December 7, 1993, Respondent's classroom performance was observed by Patricia Duncan ("Duncan"), another assistant principal at Rockway; Duncan found Respondent unsatisfactory in the area of assessment techniques. Duncan found that Respondent's assessment of students' work was deficient because the grades in Respondent's grade book did not correlate with the days that class was in session, nor with work contained in the students' folders. During the December 7, 1993 observation, Duncan also noted that Respondent did not have the required work folders for some of the students listed in Respondent's classroom. In an effort to assist Respondent, Duncan provided Respondent with a prescription for Respondent's performance improvement which required that Respondent produce his grade book and student folders to Duncan for review and seek the assistance of the math department chairperson. On December 15, 1993, a mid-year Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), was held with Respondent and Jorge Sotolongo ("Sotolongo"), the principal of Rockway at the time, to address the results of Respondent's observations, Respondent's unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to timely complete activities and assignments designed to help him reach an acceptable level of performance. At the CFR on December 15, 1993, Respondent was advised that if he had to remain on prescription, he would receive an unacceptable annual evaluation at the end of the 1993/94 school year. Although Respondent already had been reminded of the requirement that he complete his prescription, on February 4, 1994, Respondent again had to be notified of his failure to complete his activities and assignments as required by Respondent's prescription. On April 12, 1994, Sotolongo formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's performance unsatisfactory and unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; and assessment techniques. During the observation on April 12, 1994, Sotolongo noted: that Respondent did not have lesson plans for the class Respondent was teaching; that Respondent's grade book showed that Respondent did not have the required two grades per week for each student; that Respondent had failed to note assignments contained in the students' work folders in his grade book; and that Respondent had failed to properly identify students in his grade book. Including the observation on April 12, 1994, Respondent had been formally observed four times during the 1993/94 school year, and Respondent's classroom performance had been found unacceptable in three out of the four observations. (An observation by Sotolongo on February 10, 1994, scored Respondent's performance as satisfactory.) Since Respondent had received three unacceptable observations during the 1993/94 school year, on May 5, 1994, Sotolongo requested that the School Board perform an external review of Respondent's classroom performance. On May 16, 1994, an external observation of Respondent's performance was conducted by: Billy Birnie, the School Board's Regional Director of Instructional Support; and the principal, Sotolongo. The external observation of Respondent's performance concluded with Respondent being rated, by both observers, unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques. The Respondent questioned whether Birnie and Sotolongo improperly collaberated in completing their TADS observation reports on the observation on May 16, 1994. But both explained that their reports were completed separately, after which they conferred, as contemplated (and, indeed, required) by the TADS procedures. There was no evidence of any improprieties. During the external observation on May 16, 1994, Respondent failed to, and did not even attempt to, follow the lesson plans he had prepared for that day. In addition, the Respondent's lecture was not directed towards any of the objectives listed in Respondent's lesson plans, and Respondent was unable to properly present a lesson on the metric system. A review of Respondent's student work folders during the classroom observation on May 16, 1994, revealed that Respondent did not employ a variety of test formats as required by TADS; rather, Respondent used only those tests contained in the student textbook. As a result of Respondent's unsatisfactory performance and unacceptable observation of May 16, 1994, Respondent was provided with additional activities to assist him in improving his performance. Respondent failed to complete the required assignments and activities related to his unacceptable external observation of May 16, 1994. On June 8, 1994, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's continuing unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to complete assigned activities, and Respondent's annual evaluation. In accordance with TADS, Respondent also was placed on prescription in the area of professional responsibility due to his failure to comply with directives regarding his assigned activities and his failure to complete the assigned activities. At the CFR on June 8, 1994, Respondent was informed that due to his unsatisfactory performance, he would stay on prescription for the remainder of the 1993/94 school year and that he would start the 1994/95 school year on prescription. By the end of the 1993/94 school year, Respondent had been formally observed five times and Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in four out of the five observations. On June 8, 1994, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, which reflected that Respondent had been rated unacceptable in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; assessment techniques; and professional responsibility. On June 17, 1994, Respondent was notified by certified letter that, because he had received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was entitled to request a review of the evaluation. Respondent started the 1994/95 school year on prescription. On October 11, 1994, Respondent was again formally observed by Sotolongo and, in accordance with TADS, was found unacceptable in knowledge of the subject matter and techniques of instruction. During the observation on October 11, 1994, Respondent was unable to provide a correct answer to a mathematical word problem even after resorting to a calculator; the incorrect answer to the problem remained on the board for the duration of the class. Respondent also was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction in the observation on October 11, 1994. Respondent failed to provide feedback to students who gave incorrect answers to the math problems being discussed. Respondent was prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming his deficiencies as identified in the classroom observation on October 11, 1994. He was directed to complete these activities by November 4, 1994. By November 22, 1994, Respondent still had not completed the activities. In a further effort to assist Respondent with his performance improvement, Respondent was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program after Sotolongo learned that Respondent had been arrested for possession of cocaine. On December 1, 1994, almost a year after Duncan first formally observed Respondent's performance, Duncan again observed Respondent's classroom performance. Duncan found Respondent unacceptable and unsatisfactory under TADS in knowledge of the subject matter after Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson involving graphs (instead giving inaccurate information to his students.) On December 7, 1994, a mid-year CFR was held between Respondent and Carmen Marinelli ("Marinelli"), the new principal at Rockway, to discuss Respondent's two unacceptable observations during the 1994/95 school year and Respondent's failure to complete the prescription plan activities assigned him, and to offer Respondent assistance in remediating his unsatisfactory performance. At the CFR on December 7, 1994, Respondent again was reminded that completion of his assigned activities was part of his professional responsibility, and Respondent was advised that if he did not remediate all of his deficiencies by April, 1995, his Professional Service Contract (PSC) would not be renewed. On February 13, 1995, Marinelli performed a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and, in accordance with TADS, found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; and knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent was again prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies identified in the classroom observation on February 13, 1995. During the observation on February 13, 1995, Marinelli noted that Respondent did not have lesson plans for his class and that Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson which required the use of fractions. As a result of Respondent having been formally observed three times during the 1994/95 school year and because Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in all three observations, Marinelli requested another external observation. On March 27, 1995, Marinelli and Dr. Hector Hirigoyen, a regional mathematics coordinator, conducted an external observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques. During the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent's lesson plans did not reflect any planned activities for his class, and Respondent's grade book did not contain any grades for a three-week period. Respondent also gave students incorrect information regarding a mathematics vocabulary lesson. After the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent was prescribed still more activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies observed. He also was offered additional assistance from the district supervisor, assistant principal, or department chairperson. By letter dated March 28, 1995, Respondent was notified by the Superintendent of Schools that the deficiencies noted in Respondent's performance during the 1993/94 school year had not been corrected and that the Superintendent was recommending that Respondent not be issued a new PSC. Additionally, the Superintendent's letter of March 28, 1995, notified Respondent that assessment of Respondent's performance would continue for the remainder of Respondent's contract. On May 3, 1995, Marinelli held a CFR with Respondent to discuss the status of his prescription, to remind Respondent that if he remained on prescription he may not be reappointed, and to review Respondent's interim annual evaluation of unacceptable performance. On May 12, 1995, Martha Boden, an outside observer, conducted a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's techniques of instruction to be unsatisfactory. Boden cited Respondent's failure to allow students to answer questions and failure to determine whether students understood the lesson being given as the reasons for Respondent's unacceptable performance. During the observation on May 12, 1995, when the school year was close to ending, the outside observer also found that Respondent had only two grades per student in his grade book. On June 9, 1995, Marinelli held another CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during the 1994/95 school year and to advise Respondent that, since he had not remediated his deficiencies, he would receive an overall unacceptable annual evaluation, and that his PSC would not be renewed. On June 9, 1995, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1994/95 school year in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; techniques of instruction; and professional responsibility. The Respondent has argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of offense taken at his expression of "concern with the inadequacies of the textbooks that he was directed to use in his math classes." This argument is rejected. First, the Respondent's testimony on the textbook argument consisted of speculation that one assistant principal who evaluated him (Carole Abrams) might have taken offense when the Respondent went "over her head" and took direct action to have copies of textbooks delivered to the school. According to the Respondent's testimony, this argument would not apply to any of the other educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory. In addition, the Respondent did not testify that any offense was taken even by Abrams at the Respondent's insinuation that the textbooks were inadequate. There was no evidence that the textbooks were inadequate; rather, the evidence was that they were new and that the Respondent wanted to use his old textbooks because he was more accustomed to and comfortable with them. The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of envy on account of his successful application for grants from the School Board. Although this argument is based on testimony from the Respondent, that testimony is rejected. It is not found that any, much less all, of the educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory were envious of the Respondent's grants, or that any of their evaluations were affected by the Respondent's grant applications or grants. The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of TADS's inflexibility and inability to fairly evaluate the Respondent's performance under his grants. However, the Respondent's grants had no impact on lesson planning or grading, or on the evaluation of his performance in those areas under TADS. (Indeed, in response to criticism that he had no lesson plans, the Respondent produced another teacher's lesson plans from a time period that preceded the Respondent's grant by two years and claimed that he was following them. As for grading, the Respondent already had been cited under TADS for failing to maintain sufficient grades in his grade book during the 1991/1992 school year, which was before he started implementing his first grant.) As for teaching techniques, another area in which the Respondent consistently performed poorly, it is found that TADS was flexible enough to allow for a fair evaluation of the Respondent's performance under his grants. TADS was specifically formulated to allow for any type of effective teaching and for a variety of teaching methods, and the areas observed under the techniques of instruction category would not conflict with an individual teacher's teaching style or method. The problem was not that the Respondent was teaching under a grant; the problem was that he was not teaching well, grant or no grant. (Indeed, for most of the time the Respondent claimed to have been utilizing special teaching techniques under the grant to "teach down" to students in the "At Risk Program" to prevent them from dropping out, he testified that he actually was teaching mainstream students; the problem was the Respondent's inadequacies, not his students.) The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that he did not get the assistance to which he was entitled so as to improve his unsatisfactory performance. But the proof of the School Board's attempts to assist the Respondent was overwhelming. Indeed, in the face of the evidence, at final hearing, the Respondent testified to the exact opposite of what he then argued in his Proposed Recommended Order--he complained that he was given too much assistance, which hindered his attempts to improve his performance. 1/ Other arguments the Respondent attempted in the course of his testimony were not even argued in his Proposed Recommended Order. The Respondent testified that some of the people from whom he sought assistance seemed afraid to help, but he did not identify who these people were, and it is not found that anyone declined to help the Respondent out of fear of repercussions. He also testified that he was unable to take advantage of planning periods to prepare lesson plans because he was required to cover for other teachers who had to miss classes to coach softball, but softball season was in the spring and could not excuse the Respondent's failure to prepare lesson plans in the fall and winter. The Respondent also testified that he tried to avoid having to cover for teachers while he was on prescription and that the persistence of these teachers indicated that administrators had overridden the Respondent; but neither the teachers nor the admin- istrators were identified, and it is not found that any administrator required the Respondent to cover classes for those teachers while he was on prescription. The Respondent also testified that the grant required him to do extra work arranging field trips, leaving him less time for lesson planning, teaching and completing prescrip- tions; but, in the 1994/1995 school year, the Respondent used some of his grant money to hire a "para-professional" to help him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter the final order: (1) that Robert Nolan, Jr., not be issued a new Professional Service Contract; (2) that Robert Nolan, Jr., be dismissed as an employee of The School Board of Dade County, Florida; and (3) that Robert Nolan's suspension of April 12, 1995, be sustained and that he receive no back pay for the period of this suspension. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a continuing contract for approximately 15 years. He has a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in the area of education. During the 1988-89 school year Respondent was assigned as a teacher to Highland Oaks Middle School. Danielle Fisher was a student in Respondent's fifth period math class. On May 8, 1989, during math class, Dantelle Fisher became involved in a loud argument with one of her friends over which of the two girls was the owner of a "fucking lipstick." Fisher, who was also eating candy, kept proclaiming to the other girl, "Fuck you. It's mine." Fisher's argument disrupted Respondent's math class and the class next door. Respondent directed Fisher to be quiet, and Fisher refused. Respondent directed her again to be quiet, and again she refused. Respondent directed her to leave the room, and she refused. Respondent again directed her to leave the room, and she yelled at him "Fuck you. Screw you, asshole." Fisher continued yelling profanities, and Respondent went over to where she was sitting. He took her left arm to guide her out of her seat, and she resisted, refusing to move. He then exerted a small amount of force, pulling her up from her seat. Respondent gave her her books and her purse and led her by her left arm to the open classroom door, instructing her to report to the office. Respondent then closed the classroom boor. Fisher then opened the classroom door and screamed at Respondent, "Fuck you. I'm going to get you fired." She then yelled to her classmates, "Everybody, remember this." She then showed them her left arm which at that moment showed finger prints, i.e., the impression of where Respondent's fingers had been on her arm. She then left. By the time that Fisher reached the principal's office, she had red welts and scratches on her right arm. Respondent had not touched Fisher on her right arm. Fisher was not humiliated or embarrassed by the incident. She had been removed from Respondent's classroom on previous occasions for disruptive conduct and had been removed from her social studies class on a previous occasion for banging on the wall.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Specific Notice of Charges filed against Respondent and reinstating Respondent to his position as a classroom teacher with full back pay from the date of his suspension to the date of hid reinstatement. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER D0AH CASE NO. 89-6345 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact lumbered 2 and 3 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 7-12 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 13 and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, conclusions of law, or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: numbered 1-4 and both numbers 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Paul W. Bell, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent's professional services employment contract should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petitioner's letter to the Respondent dated October 1, 2002, and in the Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated October 25, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the Miami-Dade County school district and to provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (2001). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Stern was employed as a teacher with the School Board under a professional services contract. Ms. Stern is a member of the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"), and the terms of her employment with the School Board are governed by the Contract between the Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Ms. Stern first received her teaching certificate in 1952, and she began teaching in the Miami-Dade County public school system in 1987. The 2000-2001 school year was her first year teaching at Campbell Drive Elementary, and she was assigned to teach a regular second grade class. Campbell Drive Elementary was rated a "D" level school at the times material to this proceeding. Teacher Assessment and Development System. The Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS") had, prior to the 2001-2002 school year, been used in the Miami- Dade County public school system for 15 years to evaluate teachers employed by the School Board. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation ("Joint Committee") decided in 1996 that TADS should be replaced with a new evaluation system.2 As a result, the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System ("PACES") was developed and has been in use in the Miami-Dade County public school system since the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. As will be discussed in more detail below, the observations and evaluations at issue herein were all performed using TADS. TADS is a performance-based evaluation instrument, which includes sixty-eight specific teacher behaviors that should be performed in the classroom. The TADS evaluation procedures set forth in the UTD Contract and established by the Joint Committee required that formal Classroom Assessment observations be performed, that any observed performance deficiencies be noted, and that professional growth opportunities be provided to teachers with noted deficiencies. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period for teachers with professional service contracts. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed by representatives of the Miami-Dade County public school system and the UTD to implement procedures for the new system. Pursuant to the procedures adopted in the Memorandum of Understanding, the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period is commenced the day after a conference-for- the-record is held with the teacher to advise him or her of classroom performance deficiencies. At least two observations must be conducted during the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, and the teacher must be provided assistance through prescription plan activities and through referrals to resource persons for further assistance. At the conclusion of the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, a confirmatory observation is conducted to determine if the performance deficiencies have been corrected. Prescription plan activities have the status of administrative directives.3 The principal of Campbell Drive Elementary at the times pertinent to these proceedings was Betty Thomas, and the assistant principal was Claudia Brown. Both were trained to observe and evaluate teachers using TADS. Ms. Stern was first observed at Campbell Drive Elementary on October 10, 2001, by Ms. Brown. Ms. Stern received an overall acceptable rating on the CAI (Classroom Assessment Instrument) Post-Observation Report, as well as acceptable ratings on each of the six TADS rating categories. February 5, 2001, observation. Ms. Thomas conducted her first formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on February 5, 2002,4 when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade math class from 12:30 p.m. until 1:35 p.m. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Classroom Management and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, during the observation, instructional time was lost while Ms. Stern sharpened pencils for several students and wandered around the room without giving instruction to the students and that instructional time was lost when Ms. Stern told the students to put their heads on their desks approximately minutes before they were to leave the classroom for Spanish and Physical Education classes. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off-task and behaving inappropriately. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored or failed to respond when two students yelled at one another during a test, when students talked and played with pencils during a lesson, when two students left the room and returned, when two students hit one another, and when a student crawled on the floor. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, when virtually everyone in the class was talking, Ms. Stern asked those students who were talking to raise their hands; Ms. Stern praised the students who raised their hands for their honesty but did nothing to cause the students to stop talking. Ms. Thomas also noted several instances in which Ms. Stern responded to students with remarks that were either ineffectual or not to the point. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with clear expectations regarding appropriate behavior. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that no class rules were posted in the classroom and that Ms. Stern did not refer to any class rules. Ms. Thomas also noted that, while students were being sent to the board to work math problems, 75 percent of the students in the class were talking and several students were wandering around the room, all without correction from Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to respond quickly or appropriately to students who acted inappropriately or interfered with the work of others. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not respond, and actually ignored, most of the students' inappropriate behaviors, which included a student dancing around the back of the room, students laughing and playing with a hat, students loudly asking how to do the assignment, and students yelling to one another. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.G.3. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to emphasize potential areas of difficulty, specifically with respect to the math problems involving "regrouping," by either verbal or non-verbal clues. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern failed to assist a student who had difficulty with a math problem at the board.5 Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.H.1. and 2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify areas of potential confusion or to clarify areas of confusion after it became obvious that the students did not understand the assigned math problems involving "regrouping." Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern wrote problems on the board and directed the students to solve them without providing any explanation. When several students asked Ms. Stern how to do the problems, she told them she would go over it later, but she did not do so during the math lesson. It was Ms. Thomas's general impression during her February 5, 2002, observation, that Ms. Stern was unable to manage the students in her class. There were many disruptions in the classroom that distracted the students and made it difficult for them to learn. Ms. Thomas estimates that approximately 90 percent of the students in the class were off-task at some point during the observation. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Thomas held a Conference- for-the-Record with Ms. Stern.6 Also present at the conference were Ms. Brown, as well as Ms. Marcos and Ms. Rolle, Ms. Stern's union representatives. During the conference, Ms. Thomas discussed the February 5, 2001, observation with Ms. Stern, and they discussed the prescription plan activities that Ms. Thomas had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by March 15, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. The Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription dated February 20, 2001, reflects that Ms. Stern was advised during the conference that her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period would commence the day after the conference, on February 21, 2001. Ms. Stern was also advised by Ms. Thomas that, after the conclusion of the probation period, she would determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the cited deficiencies during the probation period and would make a recommendation to the Superintendent at the conclusion of the probation period that could lead to the termination of Ms. Stern's employment. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report, the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, and the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription, thereby indicating that she had seen and received a copy of these documents. Ms. Stern completed approximately 80 percent of the prescription plan activities in the February 5, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement by the March 15, 2001, deadline. March 16, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown, the assistant principal at Campbell Drive Elementary, conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on March 16, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 10:45 a.m. Ms. Brown's impression was that Ms. Stern was agitated and angry that day and was unable to control the class or to teach adequately. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. The TADS Monitoring Committee reviewed the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and gave Ms. Stern credit for indicators IV.F.1., 2., and 3.; this change resulted in Ms. Stern's being rated acceptable in the category of Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.A.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to include in her lesson plan assessment tools, homework, materials, and most of the lesson's objectives and activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to prepare content and instructional activities to fill the allotted classroom time. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although the language arts block of instruction was scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Ms. Stern instructed the students to put their heads on their desks at 10:40 a.m., terminating the language arts instruction. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, throughout the observation period, Ms. Stern allowed unnecessary delays during instruction and transitions. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern spent approximately 20 minutes of the language arts period making comments to the students about the quality of their work and attempting to get their attention. As reported by Ms. Brown: The teacher called out one comment and direction after the other, such as "I don't hear anything from table 4. excuse me, I just said your tables not talking. you did a beautiful job. thank you, Yrline, did you hear me?" "Salami, one, two, three, four. Now take your paper . . . everybody's eyes up here! Salami! Denise, table 1, your eyes up here, table 1, 2, 3, 4. Take your paper . . . Christian, Okoya, Desiree, Stanley, take your paper . . . excuse me." "Salame" is an acronym for "Stop and look at me," and its use is recommended as a technique for quieting students. Ms. Stern did not apply the technique correctly, however, because she talked very quickly and did not wait to give the students a chance to quiet down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that students were talking and calling out to one another, making noises, and getting out of their seats while Ms. Stern read a story. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, then accepted answers from students who had not raised their hands, and failed to correct a student who was out of his seat and sitting with a student who had been separated from the group for being disruptive. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that a student that Ms. Stern had separated from the class for being disruptive was allowed to spend 20 minutes building a house with word cards; that a student spent 15 minutes with his chin on his desk doing nothing without Ms. Stern's redirecting him, and, although she said she would return to help him, she did not do so; and that, in several instances, Ms. Stern either failed to correct students who were behaving inappropriately or ignored students when they failed to respond to her directions. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands to answer questions, she accepted answers called out by students who did not raise their hands and failed to call on students who had raised their hands; that Ms. Stern re-enforced inappropriate behavior by telling a student that he was doing well when he was not working but was turned around in his seat talking to a student behind him; and that, although class rules were posted in the classroom, Ms. Stern did not refer to them. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to identify and deal quickly and appropriately with students who interacted with others inappropriately and interfered with the work of others. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern either did not notice, or ignored, students' inappropriate behavior, which included a student doing work in another student's phonetic workbook; students talking and making noises while Ms. Stern was talking or reading; students laughing at another student, who had been sent to the corner and responded to Ms. Stern's direction to get up by standing up and turning around and around. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern did not state the consequences for students who were continuously told to stop calling out or were continuously told to sit down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.F.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, as noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to refer back to the objective of the lesson, to relate one part of the lesson to other parts of the lesson, and to summarize the lesson and apply it to past or future lessons.7 A conference was held on March 23, 2001, with Ms. Stern, Ms. Thomas, and Ms. Brown in attendance. No written summary of the conference was prepared, but Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report and the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement on March 23, 2001, acknowledging that she had seen and received a copy of the documents. At the March 23, 2001, conference, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern discussed the results of the March 16, 2001, observation and the prescription plan activities that Ms. Brown had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, as well as the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by April 20, 2001. The April 20, 2001, deadline was extended until May 18, 2001, because of Ms. Stern's absences, as discussed below. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. May 17, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. In a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, and directed to Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, a District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Thomas requested that Dr. O'Donnell take control of the "re-entry" of Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas asked for Dr. O'Donnell's intervention because Ms. Stern had been absent a total of 22 personal and sick days and because Ms. Stern was on 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation. As a result of Ms. Thomas's request, Dr. O'Donnell sent a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, to Ms. Stern telling her that she needed to contact the Office of Professional Standards before she returned to work so that a clearance conference could be scheduled. The clearance conference was held on May 16, 2001, at the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. O'Donnell, Ms. Thomas, Clemencia Waddell, Director of Region VI, and Dia Falco, Ms. Stern's UTD representative, attended the conference. As reflected in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, the purpose of the conference was to address Ms. Stern's performance assessments, her attendance, and her medical fitness to perform her duties and to review Ms. Stern's record and her future employment status with the Miami-Dade County public school system. As of May 15, 2001, Ms. Stern had used more sick time than she had accrued, and Dr. O'Donnell advised her that her absences, which consisted of 21.5 sick and personal days and 1/2 days of unauthorized leave without pay, were considered excessive. Ms. Stern's performance evaluations were also discussed at the conference, and it was noted that she had been provided prescription plan activities to assist her in correcting the deficiencies identified in the March 16, 2001, observation report, which activities were to have been completed by April 20, 2001. Ms. Stern had not provided the required materials to Ms. Thomas or Ms. Brown, but, because she was absent beginning on April 18, 2001, Ms. Stern was directed to provide all of the required materials for the prescription plan activities to Ms. Thomas by the end of the workday on May 18, 2001. Ms. Stern was advised that the failure to provide these materials within the time specified would be considered a deficiency in Category VII, which is the Professional Responsibilities category of TADS, and that she would be placed on a Category VII prescription. Several directives were included in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, and Ms. Stern was advised that she was cleared to return to work on May 17, 2001. May 22, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on May 22, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. Ms. Brown's overall impression was that Ms. Stern 's performance was worse than it was during the observation on March 16, 2001. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Teacher-Student Relationships and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern had failed to plan content and instructional activities to fill the classroom time allotted for the language arts block. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern took the students to the library at 10:30 a.m., but had completed her planned classroom activities at 9:55 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information in a meaningful or orderly manner. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that "[t]he sequence of the ideas did not flow into one another. The teacher asked questions and talked about whatever came to her mind, . . ." Ms. Brown also noted that there was no logical sequence of activities or framework established for the activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students the most important topics in the lesson or various applications of the topics introduced in the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students what they would be doing and did not relate the lesson to the students' experiences. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information using analysis or comparisons. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not ask open-ended questions, that she limited her questions to those that were simple and basic, and that she failed to challenge the students beyond one cognitive level. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern wasted 12 minutes of instruction time because of delays attributable to her repeatedly consulting her lesson plan during class and failing to use student helpers to pass out papers to the class, causing the students to wait without instruction until she passed out all of the papers. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice or noticed but chose not to re-direct a student who was making a paper airplane and rearranging his desk and the inside of his book bag for a period of 15 minutes and that Ms. Stern did not speak to a student who, for a period of 10 minutes, sat with her knees to her chest. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern thanked two students for no apparent reason. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice for two minutes that a student had slid his chair halfway across the room to place it beside that of another student and that, when she noticed, she merely told the student to sit down. Ms. Brown also noted that a student fell asleep at 9:45 a.m.; after about 10 minutes, Ms. Stern noticed the student, asked if he had stayed up late the night before, and left him to sleep until he awoke at 10:25 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern told the students that she "love[d] the way everyone is talking at once but it doesn't help" and that Ms. Stern continued to accept answers from students who called out, accepting more answers from these students than from the students who raised their hands. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with appropriate and correct verbal feedback regarding specific behaviors. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored two students who had their hands up for several minutes and accepted answers called out by other students. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern praised the class for working well together when the activity was an activity that each student worked on alone. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to give the students necessary background about their activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students the ideas or skills they were to learn from the two stories that she read to them, one about a bear with a toothache and one about an octopus; she merely told the students that she was going to read a book. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students how each activity related to the other activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not emphasize the important topics in the two stories or link the topics in the stories to future activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to sequence activities and failed to point out any logic to the order in which she presented components of the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern went from one activity to the next without having an apparent goal or order to the lesson. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide closure to the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not summarize, recapitulate, or apply any of the concepts in the lesson to any past or future lessons. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify the students' confusion. Ms. Brown relates in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern asked a student a question about an octopus; when the student answered, "The end of one of the octopus' tails is the mouth," Ms. Stern's only response was "OK. I don’t quite understand but OK." Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern passed out word cards to the students but never told them what to do with the cards. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.4. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to answer quietly the questions of individual students but would address the entire class when answering the questions of one or two students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern interrupted the entire class several times to answer the questions of two students, with the result that the class did not have enough quiet time to read and complete the activity. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on May 23, 2001, which was attended by Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern.8 During the conference, the deficiencies noted by Ms. Brown during her observation on May 22, 2001, were discussed, as well as the prescription plan activities that Ms. Stern was to complete to assist her in correcting the deficiencies. The timeline for completion of the prescription plan activities was also discussed, and it was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all the prescription plan activities by June 13, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers who were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. Ms. Stern's failure to complete the prescription plan activities included in the March 16, 2001, observation by the May 18, 2001, deadline was also discussed at the May 23, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. The Summary of the Conference-for- the-Record reflects that Ms. Brown went over with Ms. Stern the prescription plan activities that were not completed. As a result of her failure to complete the prescription plan activities, Ms. Thomas placed Ms. Stern on prescription for Category VII, the TADS Professional Responsibilities category. Ms. Stern had been advised at the May 17, 2001, Conference-for- the-Record at the Office of Professional Standards that a Category VII prescription would be the consequence if she failed to complete the prescription plan activities by the May 18, 2001, deadline. Ms. Stern ultimately completed the prescription plan activities in the March 16, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, although Ms. Brown had a difficult time determining that Ms. Stern completed all of the activities because the materials she submitted to Ms. Brown were very disorganized. Ms. Stern also turned in by the June 13, 2001, deadline all of the written materials required in the prescription plan activities assigned as a result of the May 22, 2001, observation. She did not, however, turn in her weekly lesson plans to Ms. Brown prior to implementing them, as she had been instructed; rather, she turned in her lesson plans late, and, near the end of the 2000-2001 school year, she did not turn in any lesson plans. September 13, 2001, Confirmatory Observation. In a letter to Ms. Stern dated April 26, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged having received a request for medical leave from Ms. Stern for the period extending from April 18, 2001, through May 4, 2001. In the letter, Dr. O'Donnell clarified for Ms. Stern the School Board's position with respect to the impact of her absences on the calculation of the days remaining in her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Dr. O'Donnell confirmed in the letter that Ms. Stern's probation period began on February 21, 2001, and that the prescription plan activities arising out of the March 16, 2001, observation were due to be completed on April 20, 2001. Dr. O'Donnell further advised Ms. Stern that the first 10 days of absence were included in the calculation of the 90 calendar days of the probation period and that, accordingly, the end of her probation period would be extended from May 31, 2001, to June 6, 2001, both of which dates fell within the final 10 days of the school year. Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged in the April 26, 2001, letter that, normally, no observations were performed during the first and final 10 days of a school year, but she advised Ms. Stern that her 90-day probation period must be concluded by June 16, 2001, because the Miami-Dade County public school system was to change from TADS to PACES for teacher performance evaluations, effective at the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. Accordingly, Dr. O'Donnell put Ms. Stern on notice in the April 26, 2001, letter that her confirmatory observation would take place after her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period ended on June 6, 2001. In a letter dated May 9, 2001, Ms. Falco, on behalf of the UTD, advised Dr. O'Donnell that, first, she had misstated the rule regarding the treatment of absences. According to Ms. Falco, the UTD Contract provided that the first 10 days of absence were not to be counted in calculating the 90 days. Nonetheless, Dr. O'Donnell's calculation of June 6, 2001, as the last day of Ms. Stern's probation period was correct. Ms. Falco also took issue with Dr. O'Donnell's decision to complete Ms. Stern's probationary period on June 16, 2001, and she advised Dr. O'Donnell that the then-current observation procedures prohibited any formal observations during the first and final 10 days of the school year and that the UTD would appeal any formal observation of Ms. Stern conducted during the final 10 days of the 2000-2001 school year. Finally, Ms. Falco advised Dr. O'Donnell that the Joint Committee had not yet determined how to treat teachers whose probation periods carried over into the 2001-2002 school year, when teachers were to be evaluated under PACES. The Joint Committee considered Ms. Stern's case individually and decided that Ms. Stern's confirmatory observation was to be conducted using TADS rather than PACES. Ms. Stern was not disadvantaged by having this observation conducted under TADS because it is easier for a teacher to get an acceptable evaluation under TADS than under PACES. In accordance with the position taken by the UTD and because Ms. Stern could not be observed during the first 10 days of the 2001-2002 school year, the end of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period was finally determined to be September 10, 2001. On September 13, 2001, Ms. Thomas conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance when she observed Ms. Stern teach a second grade math class from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. This observation was the required confirmatory observation conducted to determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the performance deficiencies identified in the February 5, 2001, March 16, 2001, and May 22, 2001, observations. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report in which she reported that she found Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in all five categories of TADS, Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas based her determination that Ms. Stern's classroom performance was unacceptable on several factors. During the September 13, 2001, observation, Ms. Thomas noted that Ms. Stern was not teaching the lesson identified on her lesson plan; one of the students repeatedly threw paper across the room into a garbage can without re-direction by Ms. Stern; students were talking to one another and moving around the room during the entire lesson, to the extent that it was difficult for Ms. Thomas to hear Ms. Stern; Ms. Stern did not remind students who were misbehaving of the class rules; Ms. Stern appeared not to notice a student crawling around on the floor; Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, but she did not call on the students who did so; and Ms. Stern had only two grades for the students in her grade book at a point in the school year when she should have had two grades listed for each student for each week of school in each the five subjects she taught in her second grade class, or over 40 grades. Recommendation for termination. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas notified Ms. Stern that she had failed to comply with the Category VII prescription imposed on May 23, 2001, because she had failed to turn in any lesson plans during the first weeks of the 2001-2002 school year. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas also presented to Ms. Stern for her signature a form that Ms. Thomas intended to submit to Dr. George M. Koonce, Regional Superintendent, containing Ms. Thomas's recommendation that Ms. Stern's employment contract be terminated because she had not satisfactorily corrected the noted performance deficiencies within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Ms. Stern refused to sign the form to acknowledge that she was aware of the recommendation. Dr. Koonce indicated his approval of Ms. Thomas's recommendation and forwarded it to the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel and Management Services, who, in turn, forwarded the recommendation to the Superintendent of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. In a letter dated October 1, 2001, the Superintendent notified Ms. Stern that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated at its October 24, 2001, meeting. Ms. Stern timely contested the recommendation, and this administrative proceeding commenced. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Stern failed to correct the deficiencies identified in her classroom performance within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, that School Board personnel adhered to the applicable evaluation procedures in assessing Ms. Stern's teaching performance and in reaching the decision to terminate her for unsatisfactory teaching performance, and that the School Board adhered to all statutory timeframes. Throughout the duration of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown offered Ms. Stern assistance to help her correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, although Ms. Stern completed many of the prescription plan activities identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001, she was unable or unwilling to implement in the classroom the techniques and lessons included in the prescription plan activities and failed to correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. In her testimony, Ms. Stern did not dispute any of the facts included by Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the formal observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001. Rather, Ms. Stern presented in her testimony justifications for and explanations of her classroom performance during the formal observations. This testimony has been considered and found insufficient to rebut the evidence of unsatisfactory performance presented by the School Board: Ms. Stern's second grade class was composed of students of varying abilities and ethnic backgrounds, but so were all of the second grade classes at Campbell Drive Elementary. Ms. Stern's classroom may not have provided an optimum environment for teaching, but the shortcomings of the physical and technological facilities provided to Ms. Stern do not justify the noted deficiencies in her teaching and classroom skills. Finally, Ms. Stern's laissez-faire attitude regarding the inappropriate behavior of her students is difficult to reconcile with her obligation as a teacher to maintain a classroom environment in which opportunities for learning are maximized.9
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order terminating the professional services contract of Joanne T. Stern. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2002.
The Issue Whether it was proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in Petitioner's Petition; and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Stipulated Facts During the 2014-15 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Frontier Elementary School ("Frontier"). Respondent is an experienced teacher. Facts Established at the Hearing Petitioner is the duly-constituted school board of Palm Beach County, Florida. It is charged with the duty to provide a public education to the students of Palm Beach County and to establish policies and programs consistent with state law and rules that are necessary for the efficient operation and general improvement of the Palm Beach County district school system. Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher in the Palm Beach County district school system for 16 years and has been teaching since 1996. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed at Frontier in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent previously taught second grade, third grade, and fifth grade in self-contained class settings. During the events relevant to this action, she was an English Language Learners (ELL) resource teacher to children in grades first through fifth. Her performance evaluations had been positive up until the events which are involved in this matter. The employment relationship between Petitioner and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Classroom Teachers Association of Palm Beach County ("CTA"). Petitioner has alleged in its Petition that Respondent is guilty of the following violations of statute, School Board policies, or administrative rules: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c) and (2)(d) Commitment to the Student, Principle I; School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (4)(d), (4)(e), (4)(f), (4)(h), and (4)(j), Code of Ethics; School Board Policy 5.002, Anti-Bullying and Harassment, Expectations; School Board Policy 1.013(1), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff, School Board Policies; School Board Policy 3.27, Criteria for Suspension & Dismissal and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; Article II, Section M of the CTA Collective Bargaining Agreement; Rule 6A-5.056, F.A.C., (2) Misconduct in Office; H. Rule 6A-5.056(4), F.A.C., of [sic] Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; I. Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. The facts underlying these alleged violations are outlined in paragraphs 8 through 12 of the Petition filed by the School Board dated March 2, 2016. See DOAH docket entry and Petition filed on March 2, 2016. Incident Involving Z.N. Z.N., a student of Respondent, was called by the School Board. On direct examination, he was unable to remember how he was treated by Turnbull when she was his teacher. Other than acknowledging that he remembered being pulled out of Petitioner's class, Z.N. articulated no credible, clear, or convincing testimony supporting any of the allegations lodged against Respondent regarding her interaction(s) with him. Z.N.'s mother, J.N., testified that Turnbull was her son's teacher when he previously attended H.L. Johnson Elementary School ("H.L. Johnson"). Z.N. would come home every day crying and seemed miserable in Respondent's class. These observations occurred when he was Respondent's student at that elementary school. He was moved to her class at Frontier on September 22, 2013. There were times when he attended her class at H.L. Johnson that he would come home from school and would be visibly shaking. He would throw up the night before school, and she would have to physically put him in the classroom while he would beg and scream not to stay. Prior to and after leaving her class, Z.N. did not exhibit those behaviors. She wrote a letter complaining to the principal about Respondent. His mother also testified that Z.N. has been diagnosed as having attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"). The mother observed that on days where he had to attend school with Respondent at H.L. Johnson, she noticed a big difference in his sleeping and his eating. His demeanor would change, and he became withdrawn. The mother of Z.N. did not personally observe any interaction between her son and Respondent in the classroom. The father of Z.N. testified as well. He recounted that his son did not want to attend school while he was previously in Respondent's class at H.L. Johnson. He would become upset, emotional, and withdrawn. His son "threw fits," broke down, and cried when he had to go to school. To investigate his son's disconcerting response, the father personally "observed" the class three times, from outside the door.1/ During one visit, he observed the class being somewhat reckless, and Respondent was trying to get her class under control. He heard Turnbull slam a book on the desk to get the attention of the class. He heard Petitioner use the "F bomb" on one occasion.2/ When Z.N. transferred out of Turnbull's class, he started doing very well, began to succeed, and started to come out of his shell. He began going to school with less of a problem. Like the mother, Z.N.'s father did not personally observe or witness any interaction between his son and Respondent. E.D. was a student in the same class with Z.N. and Respondent at H.L. Johnson. She testified that she found Respondent to be a great teacher, and she learned things in the class with her. She felt that Turnbull was very nice to other students and her. She never saw Turnbull pick on Z.N., or treat him in a way that she felt was unfair. On the other hand, E.D. testified that Z.N. was loud and disruptive in class. Z.N. caused problems in the class which prevented the class from moving forward. E.D. did not recall hearing Respondent yell at any students, other than perhaps once when the class was loud. She never saw or heard Z.N. cry in class. The testimony of E.D. was credible and gained from personal knowledge and actual observation of teacher/student interactions in the classroom. Turnbull testified about her involvement with Z.N. At some point in time, Z.N. eventually became her class student. He was bright, although he had a diagnosis of ADHD and had been prescribed medication, which he "took infrequently, at best." He acted out and was disruptive in class virtually every day. He was disruptive in different ways, sometimes calling out and sometimes making funny noises with his mouth. At times, he would bother the other children. The behavior of Z.N., combined with that of other students, was difficult and disruptive, preventing her class from moving along according to the curriculum. As a result, the class was falling behind the other classes academically. Respondent did yell at Z.N. but not as a first resort. She would first talk to him and ask him to stop. She tried different techniques with Z.N., but admitted that there could have been times when her voice got louder when she had to repeat the same thing to Z.N. six or seven times within a short time period. She has a loud voice, which some students can interpret as yelling, but that was not her intent. Until the time Z.N. left her classroom, she felt that the parents were supportive. The mother sent her emails thanking her partially for what she was doing for her son, including an email thanking her for easing his transition into her class. She felt compassion for Z.N. and believed that he could not control what he was doing, particularly when he was not regularly taking his prescribed medication. The more persuasive evidence is that Z.N. presented teaching problems and challenges to Respondent. He disliked going to school after he was assigned to Respondent's classroom, but the undersigned is not convinced that his reaction to school was based on any traumatic treatment by Respondent. Z.N. himself offered absolutely no evidence regarding any wrongdoing by Respondent. Based on this record, there was simply a lack of clear and convincing evidence to support the allegation(s) that Respondent violated any statute, policy, or rule regarding her interaction with Z.N. Incident Involving Student A.C. A.C. was called by the School Board. He was Turnbull's fifth-grade student at Frontier. A.C. is now 13 years old and in seventh grade. On direct examination, he testified that he liked having Respondent as his teacher. He also recounted that there was not a time he did not want her to be his teacher or a time he did not want to be taught by her. Inconsistently, however, he also testified that he talked to his parents about getting him out of Respondent's class because she was rude and he did not want to be in her class. After he was no longer in her class group, there came a time when Respondent wanted A.C. to return to her group. A.C. testified that Turnbull came to get him and took him outside to talk. She stood close to him outside in a hallway alcove. He said that he was scared and nervous because he did not like the idea of a teacher talking to him. However, Respondent did nothing else to make him feel uncomfortable while they were standing in the hall. Respondent was merely talking to him. A.C. testified that when he spoke with Respondent in the hallway, she told him how much she liked him. She was not yelling or rude to him. This same hallway discussion between Turnbull and A.C. was apparently observed by Jacquelyn Marie Smith, a ten-year teacher at Frontier. She testified that one day as she was walking down the hallway with a few students, she observed Respondent and A.C. in the alcove of a doorway outside a classroom, standing about eight inches apart. It appeared to her that Respondent was speaking to A.C. and reprimanding him for something. She observed the look on A.C.'s face and could tell that he was very uncomfortable. However, she did not hear anything said by either Respondent or the student. She assumed the student was being disciplined based on his body stance and facial expressions. She did not observe Respondent place her hands on A.C. in the hallway. She testified that she observed the situation for "maybe 10 seconds."3/ There was nothing about Respondent's demeanor, posture, or anything else that led her to believe that Respondent was angry or upset. She never observed A.C. crying during her brief observation of this hallway encounter. Another teacher, Rosa Cabrera, testified that as she was passing by, she also saw Respondent in the hallway with her finger pointed at "J," a second-grader. Respondent was crouched down in the student's face saying things which Cabrera could not hear. She had no idea what Respondent was saying to the child. She did not hear anything, although she passed very close to Respondent and the student. The two were talking in a tone lower than a typical conversational tone. Like Smith, Cabrera found the fact that Respondent was standing so close to the student to be improper.4/ Respondent testified that A.C. was removed from her group for a period of time. She understood that he had gone home one day and expressed to his father that he was upset because he felt that she did not like him or that she had been mean to him and he did not want to go back to her class. When he was removed from her teaching group, Turnbull became concerned about A.C. not being provided the teaching instructions he needed. It was unrebutted that she exchanged emails with the assistant principal expressing her concern for him and her desire to work with A.C. again. As a result of her request, she was directed by the assistant principal to work with A.C. again. Respondent decided to speak to A.C. first to be sure that he was comfortable with her. She asked A.C. to come out of his class into the hallway, and they spoke in the hallway alcove. The alcove was the width of the door and perhaps an additional six inches on either side. She did this so that their conversation would not be overheard by classmates, would not embarrass him, and to ensure that A.C.'s privacy would be protected. She stood close to A.C. because there was little room in the alcove and she could hear his voice. She wanted to speak quietly and gently to him so that she would be more reassuring to him.5/ Respondent told A.C. that she understood that he felt that she was angry at him for some reason. She told him that she wanted to reassure him that she was not angry with him. Respondent told A.C. that there had been some misunderstanding between them and she would like to try to clear it up. She asked him how he felt about coming back into her class group, and told him that they missed him because he was a great addition to it. By the time the conversation was over, A.C. was smiling. They shook hands and said that they would see each other in group later that day. A.C. came to her group later that day and had an excellent session, smiling more than he had before. At no time in her conversation with him was there any scolding, anger, or cross words used. The evidence from the student, A.C., did not support a finding of any violations by clear and convincing evidence. What he did recall, and testify to, did not amount to infractions by Respondent. Likewise, the fellow teachers' unfavorable conclusions about what they observed in the hallway alcove were based on brief observations and did not constitute clear or convincing evidence of any violations. Incident Regarding Marisa Madzi Respondent "pushed in" to the classroom of Marisa Madzi, a third-grade teacher at Frontier.6/ Madzi alleged that Respondent "corrected her" in front of the class, although Madzi could not recall specifically what the correction was about. She recalled that Respondent "chimed in," telling her that she was wrong about a point or topic she had been explaining to her class. Madzi felt that Respondent acted in an unprofessional manner and that if she had an issue, she thought she should have addressed it afterwards and not in front of the class. However, Respondent's statement in front of the class did not cause her to stop her teaching. Respondent previously complained to Madzi that Madzi was loud in the classroom when she taught and that it was interrupting Respondent while she was working with her small group.7/ Respondent explained the incident in a different way. She was working with her students when one of them shared with her his response to Madzi's explanation of the answer. The student explained to Turnbull that he did not understand why his answer was wrong. She looked at the question and could see where his confusion came from. Either Madzi walked over to her to determine what she was talking to the student about or Respondent gestured for her to come over. She told Madzi that "I explained it to him, but you may want to go further into explaining to him why that's the right answer." Madzi had a reaction to being called over by Turnbull and said, "Okay, I will take care of it." Madzi had a funny look on her face that made Respondent uncomfortable. Thinking that Madzi may have been upset by their interaction in class, Respondent sent her an email (Resp. Ex. 40), saying that she did not intend to step on Madzi's toes. The purpose of the email was to apologize for giving Madzi the impression that she was correcting her. Turnbull testified that during the entire time that Respondent worked at Frontier, Madzi never spoke to her to suggest that there was anything about her, her teaching style, or her dealings with her students that she was uncomfortable with. The undersigned finds that there was not clear or convincing evidence to conclude that the incident in Madzi's class constituted a violation of any statute, policy, or rule. Incident Involving Rose Cabrera Rose Cabrera has been a teacher at Frontier for 12 years. She was driving home from campus one day and felt that Respondent was driving behind her in an aggressive manner.8/ The next day Cabrera approached Respondent on campus and said that she was the one that Respondent was tailgating and yelling at. She claimed that Respondent immediately got upset and started yelling at her and telling her that she was unprofessional. Cabrera then walked away. The next work day, Respondent stopped Cabrera in the hallway and asked to talk. Cabrera claimed that Respondent told her that "there were two possible reasons why people tailgate; either they are crazy or they have a problem, like something's going on." Cabrera testified that she walked away; but, that Respondent continued to yell at her, saying that she was unprofessional and pointing her finger at her. No students or other employees were present at either of these encounters between Respondent and Cabrera, and none were called to testify about them. Turnbull testified that she recalled the incident. She was running late for an appointment and was driving in a rush. She did not recognize the person driving the car in front of her. The next day, as she left the mail room, a person whom she did not recognize was blocking her way. The woman began to berate her, stating that Respondent had been tailgating her, that she was crazy on the road, that the woman had recently had an accident and was very nervous on the road, and that Respondent should not have been doing what she did. Respondent "could not get a word in edgewise." Neither woman was shouting. Shortly thereafter, Respondent saw Cabrera in the hallway and asked to speak with her. She tried to explain to her that she was sorry if she had upset her on the road. The two were talking over each other, but Respondent tried to explain that if somebody is behind her or beeping or waving or tailgating, she usually just gets out of their way, as obviously they are in a hurry for some reason. Cabrera said that she did not want to talk to Respondent. She had upset her the other day and was upsetting her again, so she walked away. As Cabrera was walking away, Respondent told her she was being unprofessional because she was not allowing Respondent to reply to the accusation. They never spoke of the matter again. The off campus incident on the road and the follow-up discussions on campus do not support a violation of any statute, rule, or policy by clear and convincing evidence. There was no credible evidence presented to suggest that any students or other staff members were affected, and the dispute was in the nature of a personal disagreement between Turnbull and Cabrera. This conduct and personal encounter, while regrettable, did not rise to the level of a violation of a statute, policy, or rule by Respondent. Incident in Alyssia Liberati's classroom. Alyssia Liberati worked as a teacher at Frontier for approximately 15 years. Respondent was teaching two students at the back table in her classroom, while Liberati was teaching the main class a social studies lesson. Liberati asked her students a question and, when some raised their hands, Respondent inexplicably raised her hand as well. The students thought that was funny. Liberati did not find Respondent's action to be appropriate because she was asking the children the question, not Respondent. Liberati could not remember whether Respondent was working with her students on a separate matter or whether they were included as part of the social studies lesson. Respondent claims they were coordinating their work, and one of her students wanted to participate in Liberati's question. Turnbull further testified that when the class was asked this question by Liberati, one of Respondent's own students had the correct answer. She encouraged the student to raise his hand and answer Liberati's question. When he just smiled, she offered to raise her hand for him, and he agreed. When she raised her hand, Liberati called on her. When the student would not answer, despite her encouragement, Respondent announced the student's answer and attributed it to him. Liberati said nothing to her then or after class and did not chastise her in any way, then or later. Respondent testified that part of her job was to help the English for Speaker of Other Languages (ESOL) students acquire oral language and the ability to socially interact and participate. She wanted to show the student that he should not be afraid of participating. Liberati continued on with her class and never suggested to Respondent that by raising her hand and offering her student's answer, she had disturbed her class. Empty Classroom Incident with Alyssia Liberati On another occasion, Respondent went to Liberati's classroom to "push in" and found the classroom dark and empty. Respondent waited for approximately ten minutes, thinking that the students may have been out of the room for some reason and would be late getting back. When the class never appeared, Respondent left. She wrote an email to Liberati, asking that she be notified in the future if the class and teacher were not going to be in the room at her designated arrival time.9/ Pet. Ex. 12. Liberati testified that she received an email from Respondent that night, which she characterized as requesting that she let Respondent know next time in advance if she was not going to be in the classroom because her time is valuable, that she does not have much time to go from one classroom to the next, and that she had wasted her time trying to find out where her students were. She responded to the email late that night, explaining about her daughter. She found Respondent's email to be offensive and inappropriate. The next morning, Respondent read the late night email from Liberati and, for the first time, found out about Liberati's daughter's situation. She responded immediately to Liberati and explained that at the time that she wrote her email, she had not known that Liberati's absence had been due to a family emergency. She also inquired about the well-being of her daughter. Pet. Ex. 12. Respondent further wrote, "No offense was intended," and "[S]o I hope none was taken." She followed up by going to Liberati's room in the morning to ask her if she had seen her email from that morning. Liberati replied that she had not yet seen it. Respondent explained to her that had she known that Liberati's daughter was ill, she would have never sent the email. Respondent told Liberati that her daughter takes priority and that she inquired as to how her daughter was doing. Liberati testified that she was offended by the email and that Respondent did not have to send it. She felt that Respondent could have asked another teacher where her students were. Respondent tried to explain to her that she had been instructed not to knock on other teachers' doors for any reason, so she did not-–as she did not want to disturb other classes. Nonetheless, Liberati was very angry with her. During Respondent's follow-up about the second email the next morning, Liberati felt that Respondent was in her personal space and she felt uncomfortable. She noted that Respondent's tone was very rude and confrontational and felt Respondent should not be speaking to her like that in front of the children in the hall. However, Liberati acknowledged that Respondent expressed to her in one form or another that no offense was intended. Liberati's coworker, Tara Levine, saw Respondent come down the hallway the next morning in what she described as a fairly aggressive manner, at a fast pace and with an annoyed look on her face. Levine observed a conversation between Liberati and Respondent which she felt was "a little heated." However, Levine admitted that she could not remember the conversation or its tone. She felt it was necessary to remove students from the area, which was in the hallway just before school started. Levine testified that Respondent's finger was in Liberati's face, although she observed that Liberati is much taller than Respondent, who was standing very close to Liberati. Levine never reported the incident to any administrator. Based on an objective view of the facts involving Liberati's classroom hand-raising incident and their exchange of comments regarding the empty classroom incident, there is no clear and convincing evidence that these events constituted a violation of any statute or rule. Respondent was attempting to coach her student to raise his hand when he had the right answer, and then modeled the hand-raising for him. Rather than doing something improper, Respondent was serving her student in a manner that caused no problem to Liberati. While Liberati may have been taken back by this technique, it did not constitute a violation of any rule or policy. Likewise, there was nothing improper about the email written by Respondent, who did not know about the ill child. When she found out, she responded appropriately and with due concern for the child, explaining that she did not know of the circumstances. Although the undersigned credits the observation by Levine, the hallway confrontation between Liberati and Respondent does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence to support a violation of statute, policy, or rule. Incidents Involving J.B. Respondent taught in a class of students with Janet Vino, a teacher at Frontier. Vino testified that Respondent was very aggressive toward her student, J.B. Respondent would get "in his face," speaking loudly enough for the rest of the class to hear. While Vino conceded that there was nothing inappropriate about reprimanding a student who is having behavior issues, Respondent did so in a way that Vino could hear Respondent as she was teaching her lesson off to the side. Vino described Respondent's demeanor with J.B. as very loud, with her being very close to him and with her fingers pointing in his face. Vino said that Respondent on occasion would ask her in class whether she had issues with him too. On occasion, J.B. would hide in the bathroom to avoid going with Respondent. When he would come out to go with her, he would be sulking. J.B. was in the midst of a number of family and legal-related problems, and he also had discipline issues. Vino acknowledged that she was never trained to avoid pointing your finger and shaking it at a student or not to "get too close to a student." Respondent conceded that she had problems with J.B. He would not do his work and was disruptive. J.B. would do disruptive things, like crawl under the work table and lift it up with his shoulders, while she was working with the other students. J.B. spoke to her disrespectfully at times and would hold up the class by taking his time getting started and by not being ready when she would arrive to pick him up. Sometimes he would go in the bathroom and would not come out. The effect of J.B.'s behavior on her teaching was to limit the time that she had available to teach him and other students in his group. It often took ten minutes to get J.B. to the room and seated at the table, before they could even get started. His behavior interrupted the lessons that Respondent was trying to teach and interrupted the learning of the other students. Respondent sought help with J.B. from his teacher, Vino, and Assistant Principal Witt. Respondent sought help from Vino one time in her classroom, calling her to ask if she could come over and help with J.B. because he was refusing to work and instead was writing on the worktable with a crayon. Vino never complained to Respondent about her request for help but seemed unwilling to help her with J.B. As a result, Respondent did not seek her assistance again. Turnbull sent emails to the principal and the assistant principal concerning J.B. and his problems at school. Respondent felt that J.B. was a special child who came from a difficult situation and that people at the school should be working to help him. She wanted to keep the administration informed regarding her dealings with him and how he was doing with her. Resp. Exs. 10, 11, 12, 15, and 24. Respondent made efforts to try to work with and communicate with J.B., notwithstanding his behavioral issues. She tried speaking to him directly and told him that his behaving was keeping him from learning and preventing the other student from learning. Respondent testified that she liked J.B., and, as disruptive as he was, she felt a great deal of compassion for him. She understood his bad situation at home and knew that his family was split up among foster homes. She believed that his disruptive behavior was attention-seeking and that he was an angry boy. The undersigned finds that the more credible and persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent had trouble with J.B., who presented a formidable challenge to teach. This very likely would have been true for any teacher dealing with him. Respondent sought help from his teacher and the administration. The observations and concerns raised by Vino, while understandable, do not rise to the level of providing clear and convincing evidence of a violation of any statute, policy, or rule. Behavior Observed by Principal Susan Groth Susan Groth has been the principal at Frontier for six years. She felt that the collegial and helpful climate at her school changed after Respondent came to the school. While offering no causal or underlying link to Respondent, Groth claimed that teachers became more reserved, no longer left their doors open in the morning, and had fewer interactions with one another. She claimed that this collegial atmosphere changed with Respondent's arrival.10/ Groth claimed to have personally witnessed that after certain encounters with Respondent, Community Language Facilitator Melady Roque would be shaken and crying.11/ Groth personally encountered combative behavior from Turnbull when she would try to have conversations with her. She also started to receive complaints from other teachers about Turnbull.12/ In response, she offered Respondent different training opportunities, which Respondent attended. Groth provided Respondent with two mentors for advice because she was new to the "push in" and "pull out" class system at Frontier. Groth was made aware of issues involving Respondent from other teachers within her first three weeks at the school. She received reports about Respondent concerning intimidation, humiliation, interruptions, unprofessionalism, and Respondent being very defensive.13/ However, she did not witness those encounters or behaviors herself. She noted that Respondent was defensive when she would provide constructive feedback to her. During one of her classroom observations of Respondent at work, a student misread certain sight words. Respondent nonetheless praised his work. Groth addressed the matter with her. She felt that Respondent's response to her counseling was very defensive. Subsequently, Groth gave a written observation report to Respondent. Respondent disagreed with several observation points made by Groth. She provided Groth with a written explanation setting forth her rebuttal and verbally defended her position.14/ Despite this, when Groth provided her with helpful resources and training to review, Respondent participated. However, Groth felt that Respondent did not accept her criticism very well. The issues that Groth had with Respondent were becoming less serious as time went on. It appeared to Groth that by January of Respondent's first year at Frontier, Respondent was beginning to properly adjust to the school environment and personnel. However, shortly thereafter, during an investigative meeting with Turnbull, Groth confronted Respondent with the names of several teachers that had complained about Respondent's behavior.15/ During the meeting, Turnbull had a pad of paper out and was bearing down hard and writing every time a new name of a witness was disclosed by Groth. At one point, she threw down her pencil on the table in frustration and stated, "This is horse shit." She did not throw the pencil at any person, nor did Groth think that it was her intent to do so. Respondent's union representative, at one point, had to calm her down because Respondent's arms were flailing, and she was explosive. Respondent used profanity during the meeting.16/ Despite Turnbull's actions, the process went on to completion. Neither Respondent nor her union representative ever asked for the meeting to be adjourned. Respondent's actions during that meeting were documented.17/ Pet. Ex. 11. Turnbull provided her version of this investigatory meeting with Groth. She received notification that an incident involving A.C. was being investigated. The notice of the meeting advised her that there was going to be an inquiry into an incident regarding A.C. At the meeting, other matters, unrelated to A.C., were brought up by the principal. Respondent objected to the other matters being raised. She felt that she had been "blindsided" and was being treated unfairly by consideration of matters that were not part of the official notice to her. Respondent became upset and started crying because these issues were statements made against her by colleagues, and she did not know so many people were upset with her. She testified that none of her colleagues ever approached her about any of these complaints or issues. She thought that the meeting was called to discuss one specific incident regarding one specific child. She was overwhelmed when she learned that there were so many complaints against her by teachers who had never said anything to her. Respondent was completely unaware that the statements from other teachers had even been taken. She admitted she felt betrayed and was extremely upset, stunned, and shocked. She did not threaten any person and did not confront any of the complaining teachers or staff members. Groth claimed to be worried about the safety and security of her staff and students, because of Respondent's profanity, emotional state, and explosive behavior at the meeting. Groth worried about Respondent "going after" one of the people on the list of witnesses announced at the meeting. After the meeting, Respondent was escorted off the campus without incident. Groth's belief that the mood at her school changed after Respondent arrived, without her own specific observations of conduct by Respondent, is nonetheless credited. However, her "sense" of an atmospheric change falls short of clear and convincing evidence of a violation of a policy or rule by Respondent. While Groth had the responsibility to observe and evaluate Respondent's performance, Respondent had the right to professionally and respectfully defend that performance in the observation conference. The manner of her evaluation performance defense does not violate any statutory policy or rule. However, the undersigned finds that Respondent's use of profanity and her unrestrained and explosive conduct, at the investigative meeting, were inappropriate and insubordinate. Petitioner provided sufficient and credible evidence to prove a violation of the rules and policies by clear and convincing evidence regarding her actions and conduct during this investigatory meeting with Groth. Other Relevant Events and Testimony From Respondent Aside from teachers who claimed difficulties or hostile encounters with Respondent, there were also teachers and colleagues who complimented her work and teaching methods. Janine Brockelbank has been a "push in" teacher at Frontier since 2003, like Turnbull. When she worked together in the room, she did not observe any problems with Turnbull. She observed Respondent working with Lisa Caprio's students, and the interaction seemed positive and professional to her. Turnbull often spoke closely and quietly to children in consideration of the privacy of the children and to prevent embarrassment. Brockelbank also stated that Respondent was cooperative and collaborative when they compared lesson plans with one another. Caprio taught at Frontier since it opened in 2001. She found Respondent to be on time and was always prepared to work with students. She promptly got started with the students and seemed to be ready to work with them. Caprio never had any issues with Respondent in her classroom. Caprio stated she did not find any issues with a teacher interrupting her lesson for assistance with a student. In her view, it was appropriate for a "push in" teacher to ask for her help with a student. Jennifer Eddy taught at Frontier for 13 years. Eddy observed Respondent work with her students. There was nothing that Respondent did while she was teaching in the same room that disturbed her or kept her from doing her job, nor caused her concern for the well-being of Eddy's students while they were taught by Respondent. Eddy thought that Respondent's one-on-one instruction seemed appropriate, collaborative, positive, helpful, and beneficial to the students. Catherine Burda is a 14-year veteran teacher at Frontier. She observed Respondent work hard and well with one of her students and felt she learned a lot from Respondent. Respondent had a good relationship with her students and came prepared each day. Burda wrote a positive and praising email to the principal regarding Respondent's work. Resp. Ex. 16. Burda appreciated that Respondent always spoke honestly and freely with her. Karen Lundgren worked with Respondent at H.L. Johnson and considered her to be a good colleague. Lundgren worked closely with Respondent, who was cooperative, collegial, and friendly. Respondent got along with students and taught them well. She acted professional and caring towards both students and colleagues. Smyrna Daumec, an 18-year teacher, taught with Respondent at H.L. Johnson. She found Respondent to be a good colleague because Respondent would contribute ideas on how they could work together and they shared lesson plans. Notably, she witnessed Respondent having professional disagreements with colleagues, but none of those professional disagreements adversely impacted her ability to teach. Respondent knew the material that she was teaching and was a cooperative coworker. Respondent was kind to the students and not belittling or mean. Parent S.S. had a daughter in Respondent's third- grade, gifted math class at H.L. Johnson. Her child learned and made progress in Respondent's class. Respondent remains her favorite teacher to this day. Her child learned and achieved in Respondent's class. Respondent consistently kept S.S. updated on her child's progress through email or notes in the agenda. S.S. never had any problems with Respondent, and her daughter had a good year of school when she was with Turnbull. She observed that Respondent interacted warmly with students and parents and acted very friendly and cheerful. Parent C.B. knew Respondent as a teacher for her two children at H.L. Johnson. When her children had Respondent as a teacher, they never acted or manifested a desire not to go to school. Respondent kept her updated on her children's progress, and she had open communication with Respondent while she was the teacher for both of her children. She found Respondent to be volunteering and helpful. She saw Respondent interact with other children in addition to her own when she was on campus and did not observe anything that was negative in those interactions. Her children had good years in school when they were in Respondent's class and seemed happy with her as a teacher, despite Respondent being a strict teacher. As a parent, C.B. was very happy with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order withdrawing the proposed five-day suspension and issuing instead a letter of reprimand to Respondent regarding her conduct during the investigatory interview with her school principal. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 9th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as alleged in the letter from Duval County School Board dated May 25, 2017; and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary action.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Duval County, Florida. Art. IX, § (4)(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell is a teacher covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between Duval Teachers United and the Duval County School Board for 2014-2017. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was a teacher assigned to Hyde Grove. During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach second-grade students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2016-2017 staff handbook which required staff members to strive to achieve ethical conduct and to familiarize themselves with the Code of Ethics. Teachers are trained to avoid touching students aggressively and to avoid leaving students unsupervised. The staff handbook provides that students should not be left unsupervised in a classroom or other area. The policy also provides that no student should be sent to the playground without teacher supervision. Ms. Sapp, the principal of Hyde Grove, provided training to the staff during pre-planning training and orientation week. One of those trainings was on Ethics and Professionalism. The training in-service record reflects that Respondent completed the training. During the training, Ms. Sapp provided guidelines for interaction with students and demonstrated the training principles. To avoid aggressive touching of students, she gave examples as follows: “[i]f a student falls down to the floor, pouting, as children would do, . . . basically ask for them to get up, but, rule of thumb, just not to put your hands on the student.” Ms. Sapp testified that teachers could exercise various strategies to diffuse a situation with a student engaged in disruptive behavior. Teachers are trained to create distance between the child who is being disruptive and the adult, until someone else could remove that child. Another strategy is to transfer the disruptive student to the partner-teacher for time- out. A teacher could also send the classroom partner for help or call the administration for assistance. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that her partner-teacher, Ms. Hinton, was absent on the day of the incident so she did not use that strategy. However, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell did not otherwise use any of the suggested strategies during the incident with the student. The facts that serve as the basis for this case occurred in April 2017. On April 20, 2017, at approximately 2:45 p.m., classes were preparing for afternoon dismissal. At around the same time, Ms. Jones, the Team-Up instructor arrived at the classroom she shared with Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Team-Up is an after-school program that provides academic enrichment, arts and crafts, and homework assistance. The Team-Up program operates from 2:55 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. each day. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell talking to students to prepare them for dismissal. The students were working on the iReady program using laptops. Respondent was working with three students who were seated in the back left corner of the classroom. Ms. Jones noticed that J.K. was being noncompliant with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell’s requests to continue working on the iReady program. As a result of the disruptive behavior, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell directed the student to return his laptop to the laptop cart and leave her classroom. The student continued to be disruptive and stated that he was not going to leave. Ms. Jones heard Ms. Stripling-Mitchell say, “[l]et me help you out with it,” and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell led the student by his left arm to the front of the classroom. Ms. Jones also heard the student say, “[n]o. I didn’t do anything. Get your hands off me.” While the student walked with Respondent side by side, he continued to resist. When the two arrived at the front of the classroom, the student turned and faced Respondent. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell bent over toward the student’s face. Her face was a few inches from the student’s. Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell pointing and waving her finger in the student’s face while saying, "[w]hat did your mother tell you? Didn't she tell you to respect me? I'm going to call your mother and she's going to beat your butt." Ms. Jones testimony about this statement is different in her written statement, which states, “[M]s. Stripling-Mitchell said, What did your mother tell you about being disruptive? What did your mother tell you about being disrespectful to me? I am going to call your mother and tell her everything you have done here today so she can get on your butt!” Ms. Jones was at the back of the room, near the sink, on the opposite side of the room from Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Although the statements are different, the difference is of minor significance. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell threatened to call the student’s parent while she and J.K. were at the front of the classroom and in front of other students. The student in turn yelled at Respondent to get out of his face. At the same time, he raised the laptop above his head and swung it at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Respondent blocked the laptop and took it from the student. The student then attempted to punch Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. She dropped the laptop and blocked his punch. Although Ms. Jones witnessed the events, she had not intervened to assist Ms. Stripling-Mitchell at this point. Ms. Jones contacted the administration office two times, but the teachers did not receive assistance in the classroom. After Ms. Stripling-Mitchell struggled with the student, she restrained him against one of the two dry-erase boards using her hand and forearm. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was directly facing the student with her back to the classroom, and the student’s back was against the dry-erase board. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student continued to argue and they moved along the dry-erase board laterally, for approximately eight feet. Ultimately, Ms. Jones separated Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Ms. Jones walked the student to Ms. Sapp’s office. During the walk to the principal’s office, the student complained of shortness of breath and was breathing heavily. Ms. Sapp was notified that a student was in her office and there was an issue she needed to address. Ms. Sapp testified that when she initially saw the student, he was crying, huffing and puffing, and breathing hard. When Ms. Sapp asked what happened, the student told Ms. Sapp that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell placed her hands around his throat and that he could not breathe. After J.K. told his account of the incident, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell arrived in the office. Ms. Sapp then met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. During the meeting, J.K. repeated that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked him. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell interrupted J.K. and engaged him in reenactment of the incident. The reenactment consisted of Ms. Stripling-Mitchell demonstrating how she restrained the student using her hand near his neck. Ms. Sapp then stopped the reenactment and asked the student to wait outside her office. Ms. Sapp told Ms. Stripling-Mitchell she should not touch the children, and Ms. Stripling acknowledged in agreement this was the school policy. Ms. Sapp testified that it was unacceptable for Ms. Stripling-Mitchell to instruct the student to leave her class and go sit at the picnic bench without supervision. Ms. Sapp finished her meeting with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell returned to her classroom. Before Ms. Sapp met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, she contacted the Office of Professional Standards for guidance regarding the appropriate next step. Ms. Sapp was advised to obtain statements regarding the incident. Ms. Sapp later asked Ms. Jones to send students who had knowledge of the incident to her office. After speaking with the students, Ms. Sapp asked the students to write statements about the incident as requested by the Office of Professional Standards. The statements were provided to the investigator conducting the investigation of the allegations, Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory collected the written statements and interviewed five students the day following the incident. Overall, the students provided varied descriptions of what happened. Mr. Gregory also conducted an interview of Ms. Jones, a portion of which occurred in the classroom, and requested that she provide a written statement. In addition to obtaining witness statements, Mr. Gregory researched Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s discipline history. He discovered that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had been the subject of prior investigations that resulted in disciplinary action. On May 18, 2012, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was investigated for use of profanity, demeaning, and derogatory communication directed toward employees. She was issued a written reprimand, a Step II disciplinary action. In December 2016, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was involved in an incident with a different student that is of direct relevance to this proceeding. In that incident, a parent complained about Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s interaction with their child. It was determined that during an interaction with a disruptive student, Respondent pushed that student to the floor and verbally reprimanded him in front of other students. The incident resulted in the child being subject to embarrassment and physical aggression. On January 9, 2017, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was issued a written reprimand, her second Step II disciplinary action. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was also directed to seek assistance from the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”) to obtain training on strategies for deescalating situations. After the interviews and review of the statements, Mr. Gregory concluded that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell used inappropriate physical contact with J.K. by restraining him against the wall with her hand and arm against his throat, after J.K. swung the laptop at her. Although not specifically alleged in the Notice, there was a dispute whether the student was choked. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked the student during the incident. However, she did not mention choking in her written statement. At hearing, Ms. Jones was confronted with a text message addressing that issue. The texts were as follows: Ms. Stripling-Mitchell: I was told that Ms. Timberlake planned or plans to call DCF or someone since J.K. told her I choked him that why he tried to hit me. LIES!! Ms. Jones: What!!! That’s a freaking lie!!! You did not choke him!!! Ms. Jones’ testimony regarding Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choking J.K. was not credible. There was also a dispute regarding whether Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. Ms. Jones testified Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist and threatened to strike the student. Ms. Jones did not mention this allegation in her written statement provided days after the incident. Ms. Jones also did not mention this alleged observation when Mr. Gregory interviewed her. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell testified that she did not raise her fist to strike J.K. The student provided a statement describing the incident in his own words. He indicated that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell placed her hand on his neck. There was no reference in the student’s statement that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell tried to punch him. Several other students provided written statements which also did not include any indication that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. The undersigned finds no credible evidence that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist to strike the student. There was much discussion at hearing regarding the description and behavioral history of the student. Ms. Jones described the student as a seven-year-old, scrawny boy, standing at four feet, nine inches. She also stated that the student could be sweet, but could be provoked “if things don’t go his way, if you threaten him or when the children . . . play a game called “the dozens.”2/ Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, on the other hand, described the student as routinely disruptive and noncompliant with staff. Between October 2016 and April 2017, J.K. engaged in conduct that resulted in six referrals. The referrals involved pushing another student, attempting to trip a student multiple times, stabbing a student in the arm with a pencil, and fighting. There were no referrals that involved a confrontation with a teacher. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell provided her account of the incident at hearing. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that she became the student’s teacher in August 2016. Shortly after he became her student, she became aware of his disruptive behavior. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had a practice of telling J.K., “[I]’m going to call your mom if you don’t settle down,” to encourage him to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior. On April 20, 2017, Respondent was working with three students on the iReady system when she heard someone say “[t]he folder hit me.” When she approached a group of three boys, including J.K., one student said, “J.K. just hit me with a folder.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell instructed the boys to get back to work. Before she returned to her seat, she heard someone say “Stop.” She then returned to J.K. and told him, “[y]ou’re going to need to go sit on the picnic table.” J.K. agreed to return to the iReady activity. However, a short time later, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell heard a loud yell from one of the boys at J.K.’s table. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell then repeated to J.K., “[y]ou’re going to have to leave.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell recalls that Ms. Jones arrived and sat at a table in the opposite corner of the room and began changing her shoes. During this time, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell continued to engage in a back-and-forth exchange with J.K. Similar to Ms. Jones’ account of the incident, J.K. swung the laptop at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and she blocked it. Then, J.K. tried to punch her, which she also blocked. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that after she blocked his punch, J.K. continued to attack her by trying to throw her to the floor. She testified that she had to restrain him against the dry-erase board to avoid falling. It is disputed whether the student continued to attack Ms. Stripling-Mitchell after she took the laptop and blocked his punch. Ms. Jones testified the student was not attacking Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, but rather he was trying to get away while Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was restraining him. On the other hand, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that the student was trying to “flip” her, which is why she restrained him. The undersigned finds Ms. Jones’ testimony more credible. After J.K.’s failed attempt to punch her, there was no evidence of a threat for which Ms. Stripling-Mitchell needed to defend herself. Even if there was a threat, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell inappropriately touched J.K. by restraining him against the dry-erase board using her hand against his neck area. Ultimate Findings of Fact Overall, the credible evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell restrained the student against the dry- erase board using her hand near his neck. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she told the student that his mother was going to discipline him at home for his behavior in front of other students. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she instructed the student to leave her classroom to sit at the picnic bench.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Duval County School Board, enter a final order sustaining the Step III written reprimand and suspension without pay disciplinary action imposed against Respondent, Stephanie Stripling-Mitchell, as an instructional employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 12th day of December, 2017.
