The Issue Is Petitioner eligible for Developmental Services from the Department of Children and Family Services?
Findings Of Fact Audrey Smith is the natural mother of Petitioner Chester (Charlie) Smith. She filed an application with Respondent Department of Children and Family Services Developmental Services Program on behalf of her son. The application was denied, and this case followed. Chester Smith did not appear for formal hearing. Audrey Smith represented that she had a power of attorney to act on her son's behalf and that she was his payee for federal SSI benefits, arising from Petitioner's disability and his father's death. Neither of these instruments was offered in evidence, but because she had applied to the agency on Chester's behalf and had requested formal hearing, Mrs. Smith was accepted as Petitioner's "next friend" and qualified representative. The Developmental Services Program, administered by Respondent, provides services to persons with specific developmental disabilities, including mental retardation, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, autism, and Prader-Willi Syndrome, pursuant to Chapter 393, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, born October 18, 1953, had originally been turned down for services as not meeting the statutory and rule requirements of "mental retardation." During the informal hearings following that denial and preceding referral of the disputed issues of fact to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing, Mrs. Smith asserted Petitioner's entitlement to services on the basis of "autism." She also asserted this entitlement in her request for formal hearing. In determining Petitioner's eligibility for services, agency staff psychologist Fe Ripka reviewed four psychological evaluations previously performed on Petitioner. Ms. Ripka did not testify, but her January 27, 1997, report was placed in evidence. She only reviewed evaluations done in May 1965, July 1966, February 1995, and April 1996. Ms. Ripka's degrees and titles show "M.A.," "LMHC," and "Psychologist." No specific education, training or experience on her part was related. Her report emphasized Petitioner's verbal IQ and full scale IQs as controlling of eligibility. She concluded, on the basis of her review, that Petitioner did not suffer from mental retardation. Her report made no determination on the basis of autism. Petitioner's mother related that Petitioner was deprived of oxygen at birth and never developed normally. She has presumed him "brain damaged." Petitioner has required special classes and other remedial help throughout his life. He is now 45 years old. From 2 ½ to 8 ½ years of age, Petitioner was treated at the Putnam Children's Clinic. Not much is known about the treatment. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 (also part of Respondent's Exhibit 4) contains records from the Devereux Foundation Schools of Devon, Pennsylvania, including an August 22, 1967, "Exit Interview and Discharge Diagnosis Form" with a discharge diagnosis of "ooo-x28 Schizophrenic Reaction, Childhood Type . . . autism and possible mental retardation." The "Initial Psychiatric Evaluation" of November 5, 1965, by Robert Ewalds, M.D., a psychiatrist, related that Petitioner's manner was "generally autistic," with borderline intellectual functioning, "a history of autism," and a thinking disorder/chronic schizophrenic process, and that Petitioner would require custodial care indefinitely. The January 7, 1966, "Psycho- Educational Evaluation" of F. Howard Buss, Ph.D., and W.S. Holloway, B.A., of Devereux's Psychology Department, made an "Educational Diagnosis" of Petitioner as "achieving academically at a level below measured intellectual functioning and well below chronological age expectations." Henry Platt, Ph.D., of the Psychology Department performed a July 30, 1966, "Psychological Evaluation" which related the following critical matters: Intelligence: Current intellectual functioning, as measured by the WISC, was at a low average level in the verbal area (IQ 86), submarginal in the performance area (IQ 62), with a marginal level for the full test (IQ 72). * * * . . . findings were in line with those reported on the WISC about a year ago, despite the slight drop in scores on present testing. VIQ2 PIQ3 FSIQ4 May 1965 89 68 77 July 1966 86 62 72 After Pennsylvania, Petitioner lived in Minnesota with his adult married sister until recently. He received developmental disability benefits from the State of Minnesota until he moved to Florida to live with his mother in 1997. Petitioner was tested February 14, 1995, by Scott County, Minnesota, Human Services agency (Petitioner's Exhibit 10). The Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale tests were administered. In a written opinion, April Leaveck, Psy.D., opined that Petitioner had scored a verbal IQ of 82; performance IQ of 67 and full scale IQ of 74, with a percentile ranking of four, which constituted a "borderline range of intellectual functioning." The Vineland testing showed a low-deficit adaptive level in each of the three domains and overall low-deficit adaptive level with an age equivalent score of seven years, eight months. Petitioner was 42 years old at the time. In the evaluator's opinion, a significant discrepancy in his verbal and performance scores reflected "brain damage at birth." All of the foregoing reports also attest to Petitioner's lifelong impairment in reciprocal interpersonal relationships and social interaction. All of them indicate he was hard to test because of distractibility. An April 1996 evaluation, performed when Petitioner was 43, showed a Stanford-Binet IQ of 59. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Approximately April 16, 1998, and subsequent to Ms. Ripka's review, Petitioner was tested by Larry Neidigh, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist and Diplomate of the American College of Forensic Examiners. His Weschler test scoring when Petitioner was 45, showed a Verbal IQ of 69, a Performance IQ of 62, and a Full Scale Select IQ of 63. He opined that, applying all variables, a valid estimate of Petitioner's intellectual functioning was between 60 and 68. Petitioner is currently being seen at the Clay County Florida Behavioral Services Day Treatment Program by Russell Findley, M.D. Dr. Findley is a Florida-licensed medical physician. He is treating Petitioner for Bipolar Disorder, using a variety of modalities, including psychotropic drugs. He has concluded that Petitioner's medical history, including the historical facts of birth trauma and initiation of mental health treatment when Petitioner was only 2 ½ years old, is suggestive that Petitioner's "primary process is best described as developmental, not [a] mental health problem;" and that Petitioner has significant intellectual impairment, not consonant with BiPolar Disorder. Dr. Findley testified that Petitioner is "mildly mentally retarded," (TR 76-77) and again, "In my clinical impression, it is mental retardation." (TR 77) He did not consider "schizophrenia" to be a valid current diagnosis. Petitioner's Bipolar Disorder is in remission due to the drugs currently being administered to him. With the Bipolar Disorder in remission, what Dr. Findley sees in Petitioner is consistent with mental retardation. It is possible that the new medications render Petitioner's more recent IQ tests more accurate than the earlier ones because he is less distractible and more easily tested. With a standard deviation of two, Dr. Findley is aware of the prior IQs of 72 and 74. He has administered no IQ tests himself. He considers modern testing to be more accurate. Within the DSM-IV standards of medical/psychiatric diagnosis, he considers Petitioner to be "Axis I, bipolar disorder in remission with mild MR5 " extending over the whole of Petitioner's life. (TR 84) Dr. Findley was not asked about autism. The parties agreed to the admission of an excerpt from "Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Support," published by the American Association of Mental Retardation which reads: Mental Retardation Diagnostic Features The essential feature of Mental Retardation is significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning (Criteria A) that is accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the following skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety (Criterion B). The onset must occur before age 18 years (Criterion C). Mental Retardation has many different etiologies and may be seen as a final common pathway of various pathological processes that affect the functioning of the central nervous system. General intellectual functioning is defined by the intelligence quotient (IQ or IQ-equivalent) obtained by assessment with one or more of the standardized, individually administered intelligence tests (e.g., Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children -- Revised, Stanford-Binet, Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children). Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning is defined as an IQ of about 70 or below (approximately 2 standard deviations below the mean). It should be noted that there is a measurement error of approximately 5 points in assessing IQ, although this may vary from instrument to instrument (e.g. a Wechsler IQ of 70 is considered to represent a range of 65-75). Thus, it is possible to diagnose Mental Retardation in individuals with . . . [remainder missing] To sum up, Petitioner's documented assessments, by year and age, are as follows: Exhibit No. Date Age Full Scale IQ P-9 5/65 11 ½ 77 Other Diagnosis, if any P-9 11/5/65 12 ½ generally autistic; a history of autism; P-9 7/30/66 13 72 P-9 8/22/67 14 000-x28 schizophrenic reaction, autism and possible mental retardation P-10 2/14/95 42 74 P-2 4/96 43 59 P-6 4/16/98 45 63 true IQ between 60-68 Also, the current diagnosis of Dr. Findley, pursuant to the generally recognized authority of DSM-IV, may be summed up that Petitioner suffers from mild mental retardation, previously camouflaged by his Bipolar Disorder. Petitioner has never met the standards of personal independence and social responsibility of his chronological age. He has never held other than a protected job. He has never solely cared for his own person. Since infancy, he has been under the care and supervision of either his family in Pennsylvania, his adult sister in Minnesota, where he has long received developmental benefits, or his mother since 1997. He has suffered from impairment in reciprocal social interaction continuously since infancy.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order determining Petitioner eligible for "autism" benefits and denying him retardation benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1999.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to receive supported living services from Respondent? See Section 393.066, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 18 years old. He lives with his paternal grandmother and step-grandfather at 3109 Brandywine Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. On March 23, 1994, the Petitioner applied for developmental services. Petitioner's natural mother was institutionalized for retardation for an indeterminate length of time at a Sunland Center. Shortly after the Petitioner's birth, his mother left the Petitioner and his father. Petitioner has lived with his paternal grandmother since he was 13 weeks old. Petitioner's grandmother raised her own three children and has experience in child rearing and the development of children. She noticed that Petitioner's development was slow when Petitioner did not begin walking at age 17 months and did not begin to speak intelligible words until 30 months of age. Petitioner was taken to the Florida State University Psychology Clinic at age 4 years 3 months (4.3 years) in an effort to determine why his development was slow. This was the first time the Petitioner's Intelligence Quotient (IQ) was tested. He obtained a 77 on the Stanford-Binet L-M test, and an 87 on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. FSU advised the Petitioner's grandmother that Petitioner might have developmental problems and to observe him closely and retest him if he had problems in school. As a result, Petitioner's IQ was tested several times between ages 5 and 17. Testing dates and scores of these test are as follows: October 80 4.3 Stanford-Binet FSU Psy. Clinic IQ 77 Vineland Adaptive FSU Psy. Clinic 87 July 81 5.0 FSU Psy. Clinic Stanford-Binet IQ 84 May 84 7.10 WISC-R FSIQ 84-87 85 9.0 WISC-R FSIQ 80 April 86 9.9 WISC-R Psych. Assoc., Dr.Cook FSIQ 69 June 86 9.11 WISC-R Leon Cty. School, Barnes FSIQ 72 March 91 14.8 WISC-R Leon Cty. School, Popp FSIQ 69 April 92 15.9 Vineland Adapt. Psych. Assoc. Dr. Clark 62 July 93 17.0 WAIS-R, Psych. Assoc. Dr. Deitchman 70 Dr. Thomas Clark, who holds a doctorate in clinical psychology and is a board certified clinical psychologist, testified regarding intelligence testing and his examination of the Petitioner and the records of Petitioner's intelligence testing. The numbers in the far right column in Paragraph 5, above, all reflect the IQ of the Petitioner. IQ scores of 70 or lower placed a person two or more standard deviations below the mean on standardized intelligence tests. Individuals with mental retardation, who may exhibit higher IQ test scores when they are younger, may have their scores decrease as they get older. This is a recognized phenomenon in the mildly retarded. Scores on IQ tests may be inflated by a practice factor which occurs when the test is administered more than once within a six-month period. The record reflects that the Petitioner was tested two times in 1986, and his second score of 72 was higher because of the practice factor. The increase of Petitioner's score was within 2 to 3 points above his general performance on the first test in 1986 and his subsequent tests in 1991, 1992, and 1993, which is the predicted increase due to the practice factor. Since age 9.9, with the exception of the 72 due to the practice factor, the Petitioner has not scored above 70 on an IQ test. Based upon his examination and testing of the Petitioner and his review of the Petitioner's records, Dr. Clark's professional opinion was that the Petitioner was more than two standard deviations below the average in intellectual performance. Although the Petitioner suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder and has some emotional problems, Dr. Clark stated this did not alter his opinion regarding the Petitioner's IQ or his intellectual performance. Dr. Clark found that Petitioner's adaptive behavior was low for Petitioner's IQ. The parties stipulated that the measurement of Petitioner's general intellectual functioning existed concurrently with deficits in his adaptive behavior as manifested during the period from conception to age 18. Based upon its assessment, the Leon County Schools recommended that the Petitioner be placed in the community-based educational program which is designed for students who are mentally retarded within the educable range. The Petitioner has been awarded Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act upon a determination that he is mentally retarded. Since his completion of school, the Petitioner has been attending workshops conducted by Goodwill Industries to develop job skills and job coping skills. He has been unable to maintain employment, and has been discharged from all of the positions to which he has been referred. Petitioner was referred to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Developmental Services by officials of Vocational Rehabilitation (Composite Exhibit 1-C). Petitioner's grandparents take him shopping, assist the Petitioner in maintaining his daily life, live with Petitioner on a daily basis, and give him support and try to assist him in controlling his "excessive loud talking". Without the care of his grandparents, the Petitioner would not be able to maintain the activities of daily living. Petitioner's friends include neighborhood children whose ages range from 3 years to 12 years. Their parents have requested Petitioner no longer play with them due to his size, age and conduct. Petitioner's testimony and demeanor while testifying reveal a young adult who is mentally retarded and whose adaptive skills are consistent with his IQ. Petitioner's grandmother testified that even though he is 18 1/2 years old, the Petitioner acts like a boy between 9 and 10 years old. The Respondent's position was that Petitioner's earlier test scores indicated that he was not two deviations below average intellectual performance, and the Petitioner's later test scores were adversely impacted by his emotional and attention deficit problems; therefore, Petitioner was ineligible for developmental services. The testimony of Dr. Clark clearly refuted the assertion that the Petitioner's earlier high test scores indicated a higher IQ, and refuted the alleged negative impact upon IQ testing of Petitioner's attention deficit and emotional disorder. Petitioner presented competent evidence and expert testimony concerning Petitioner's intellectual function to establish that Petitioner's performance was two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test. Petitioner's showing was unrebutted by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is; RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's eligibility for developmental services. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 23rd day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Subsumed in Paragraph 14 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 4 Subsumed in Paragraph 14 Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 16 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 17 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 10 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 11 Subsumed in Paragraph 9 Paragraph 12 Irrelevant Paragraphs 13,14 Subsumed in Paragraphs 16-19 Paragraphs 15-17 True, but made part of Statement of Case Paragraphs 18-21 Subsumed in Paragraph 20 Paragraphs 22-25 Subsumed in Paragraphs 6-10,21 Paragraph 26 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 27 Paragraph 22 Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Rejected as contrary to the more credible evidence summarized in Paragraph 20. Paragraph 3 Paragraph 5 in which the typographical error regarding the test of October 1980 is corrected. The facts set forth in the footnotes are rejected, particularly the assertion that Dr. Cook's reference to a "recent" administration of an IQ test did not fix the date of the test sufficiently to say whether the practice effect would impact its administration. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraphs 7 and 21 Paragraph 6 See comments for Paragraph 3. As stated in the findings, this premise was specifically rejected. Paragraph 8 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 9 Irrelevant Paragraph 10 Subsumed in various other findings. Paragraph 11 True; however, the Petitioner's application is based solely upon his allegation that he is mentally retarded. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel W. Dobbins, Esquire 433 North Magnolia Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, FL 32399-2949 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of committing gross immorality or moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes; violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes; or failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held Florida Educator's Certificate 615429. Respondent is certified in business, drivers' education, and physical education. The School District of Palm Beach County hired Respondent to teach high-school business at Jupiter High School for the 1995-96 or 1996-97 school year. After changing schools with another teacher, the assistant principal of Respondent's new high school, Palm Beach Lakes High School, assigned Respondent to teach mathematics. Respondent has a very limited background in mathematics. Although he objected that he was not qualified to teach mathematics, he had no option but to accept the new assignment, or terminate his employment. Respondent reluctantly agreed to teach mathematics starting in the 1998-99 school year, but he was justifiably concerned about his ability to meet the needs of his mathematics students. In January 1999, Respondent walked past an unsecured room and saw a large number of test booklets in boxes stacked on a table in the school library. Respondent entered the room, picked up and examined a test booklet, and made a copy of the booklet before returning it to the table. The test booklet was the High School Competency Test (HSCT) that was being administered that year. Respondent claims to have copied the test booklet innocently, unaware that the test questions were not to be disclosed, except as was necessary to administer the test. Respondent also claims that he took the booklet to learn what generally he was supposed to be teaching and that he did not know that a future HSCT would be identical to the one that he had copied. Respondent's claims that he did not know that the test booklet was not to be removed or copied and that he took the booklet merely to learn what he was supposed to teach in general are discredited as highly unlikely. If Respondent had thought that the test booklets were freely available to teachers, he would have merely taken one, not copied one and returned it to the table. Respondent never asked for a booklet, nor did he ever disclose to anyone else at the school that he had taken a copy of a booklet. From the start, Respondent knew that his possession of the test booklet was improper. Respondent's claim that he did not know anything about the HSCT, such as its importance or confidentiality, undermines his claim that he took a copy of the test booklet to learn what to teach in mathematics. At the time, students had to pass the HSCT to graduate from high school. Respondent likely knew this fact, otherwise, he would not have relied so heavily upon this test booklet as the source of information as to what he had to teach in mathematics. Rather than taking his cue as to what to teach from the mathematics textbook or from other mathematics teachers, Respondent took the shortcut of obtaining the ultimate test instrument and relying on the test contents for deciding what to teach in his mathematics class. On the other hand, Respondent did not know that the identical test would be administered again. This fact was not widely known by teachers or even administrators. Once he had examined the test booklet, Respondent worked out the answers, although he required assistance to do so. He then cut and pasted questions onto worksheets for use by his students, who would complete the worksheets in class and turn them into Respondent, who would go over the answers in class. The investigator of The School District of Palm Beach County concludes that Respondent's rearranging of questions is part of his attempt to conceal his wrongdoing. This conclusion is incorrect, as the rearranging of questions allowed Respondent to save copying costs. The evidence likewise fails to establish that Respondent told his students not to disclose the worksheets. Thus, the sole evidence of concealment is Respondent's failure to disclose his possession of the HSCT booklet to administrators or other teachers. In fact, once confronted with his possession of the HSCT, Respondent admitted to his wrongdoing and cooperated with the investigation. However, it is impossible to harmonize Respondent's claims of innocence and good faith with the proximity of his use of the copied test with the test date. If, as Respondent claims, he intended only to learn what he should be teaching in mathematics, he could have examined the copied test booklet, noted the areas covered, and covered them in an orderly fashion through the school year, using different questions from those found in his copy of the test booklet. Instead, Respondent gave his students numerous questions from his copy of the test booklet on September 24 and 26-29 and October 1. The presentation of a variety of mathematical concepts in such close proximity to the HSCT test date suggest a knowing misuse of the copied test booklet. Respondent's knowing misuse of the test, combined with the chance occurrence of the administration of the same test in October 2000, led to distorted results among his students, many of whom recognized that questions on the real test were identical with questions with which Respondent had prepared them. After an investigation, the Florida Department of Education and The School District of Palm Beach County decided to invalidate the mathematics scores of the hundreds of students at Respondent's high school who had taken the October 2000 HSCT and require them to retake a different version of the mathematical portion of the test. The question naturally arises whether October 2000 marked the first time that Respondent used the HSCT booklet that he had taken in January 1999. Respondent claims that he filed the test booklet and forgot about it until shortly before the October 2000 test. The investigation revealed that the scores of Respondent's students on the mathematics portion of the HSCT during the 1999-2000 school year were considerably better than the scores of similarly situated students, but investigators lacked the evidence to pursue this matter further. Thus, the evidence fails to establish that Respondent improperly used the copied test material more than once. Petitioner's reliance on Respondent's training as a proctor does not tend to establish Respondent's knowledge of his misuse of the test booklet that he copied. The training materials do not directly address older testing materials in the possession of a proctor, and Respondent possesses only limited ability to draw the inferences that Petitioner claims were inescapable. Also, the late recollection of one of Petitioner's witnesses that Respondent had inquired whether he might obtain a bonus if his students performed well on the HSCT is discredited. Petitioner has proved that Respondent obtained a copy of an HSCT under circumstances that he knew were improper, and he knowingly misused the copied test materials to prepare his students to take the HSCT. Undoubtedly, Respondent did not know that the October 2000 HSCT would be identical to the test that he had copied. Also, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent tried to conceal his misuse of the copied HSCT materials, other than by not mentioning to an administrator or other teacher that he possessed these materials. Lastly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's actions were motivated by self-interest. Respondent doubted his ability to teach mathematics, and he misused the test materials to serve the interests of his students, although at the expense of thousands of other students whose preparation did not include exposure to HSCT prior to taking it. Undoubtedly, this commitment to his students is partly responsible for the testimony of Respondent's principal, who described him as an "outstanding teacher," although Respondent received a decidedly mixed review from the four students whom he called as witnesses on his behalf. After an investigation, the Superintendent of The School District of Palm Beach County recommended to the School Board that it suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. The School Board adopted this recommendation. This is the only discipline that Respondent has received as a teacher, and he proctored last school year the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which has replaced the HSCT.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code; suspending his Educator's Certificate for six months; and placing his certificate on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Matthew E. Haynes Chambleee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. The Barrister's Building, Suite 500 1615 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated June 25, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent began employment as a teacher with the Lake County School District in school year 1983-1984 and was continuously employed by the District until she voluntarily resigned her position in May 2000. She holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 541066, covering the area of speech correction. Her Certificate expires on June 30, 2004. Beginning in school year 1983-1984 and continuing until her resignation, Respondent provided ESE speech pathology and testing/evaluation for various schools in the Lake County school system. During school year 1999-2000, Respondent was employed as a speech and language pathologist at UMS. She also provided the same services (when needed) at Umatilla High School and Lake Tech High School (Lake Tech) in Eustis, Florida. Part of her responsibilities included administering tests to ESE students which aid in determining whether such students should continue in the ESE program. Two of those tests are the Adolescent Test of Problem Solving (TOPS) and the Adolescent Word Test (Word Test), both of which are given to students with a language impairment. Such tests were normally administered during a student's elective period, such as homeroom or band. In school years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, when she was in the sixth and seventh grades at U.M.S., T.S. received speech services from Respondent in the ESE program for an expressive receptive language delay condition, which created a language processing deficiency. At T.S.'s seventh grade Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting, however, it was determined that she would be mainstreamed into regular classes for the eighth grade, which meant that she would no longer receive direct services from Respondent, but rather Respondent would only "check on her grades" to see how the student was "performing in the mainstream." When a student in the ESE program is due for testing or assessment, a clerk in the UMS guidance office normally sends a notice and any other pertinent forms to the student's parents and the ESE teacher several weeks before the meeting. Besides the annual IEP, every three years a re-evaluation is done to determine whether the student should be retained in the ESE program. On April 21, 2000, a Lake County Schools Exceptional Student Notification of Educational Staffing (Notice) was sent to T.S.'s parents and Respondent scheduling a meeting at 11:00 a.m., Monday, May 8, 2000. A Notice and Consent for Re- Evaluation was also sent to the parents for their signature, which would serve as authorization for the school to give T.S. another "language screening/evaluation," that is, authorization to administer the TOPS test and Word Test. Although the Notice was not wholly clear in identifying the purpose of the meeting, and cited a "review of your child's IEP/EP program(s) Speech/Language Impaired" and a discussion of the "re-evaluation assessment [of T.S.] and possible continued eligibility [in the ESE program]" as its purposes, in plainer terms its purpose was simply to obtain permission from the parents to administer a re-evaluation examination and to explain to the parents the testing procedure. Respondent acknowledges receiving both documents. Attendees were to include the parents, Respondent, and Connie Gibson, a guidance counselor at UMS. During school year 1999-2000, Respondent normally provided ESE services at Lake Tech (in Eustis) on Monday mornings until around 11:00 a.m. Because she mistakenly believed the meeting was to be held on Tuesday, May 9, 2000 (rather than May 8), Respondent signed out for Lake Tech on the morning of May 8. She also indicated on the sign-out sheet that after leaving Lake Tech, she would stop by Eustis Heights Elementary School (Eustis Heights) for a few minutes to speak with its principal. When she arrived at Eustis Heights around 11:00 a.m., Respondent received a message reminding her that a meeting was being held at UMS. In the meantime, T.S.'s parents and Connie Gibson arrived for the meeting at 11:00 a.m. Ms. Gibson was under the mistaken impression that the purpose of the meeting was to have Respondent go over the re-evaluation testing that Ms. Gibson thought Respondent had already administered to T.S. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, Ms. Gibson asked her if she had the test results for T.S. Respondent replied that the testing was in her room (which was no more than a minute or two away) and that she needed to retrieve the tests. Although the tests could have been retrieved in less than five minutes, Respondent exited the room and returned around fifteen or so minutes later. This amount of time has been accepted as being the most accurate, even though the length of Respondent's absence is in dispute, with estimates ranging from as few as four or five minutes to as long as twenty-five minutes. Respondent returned with both the TOPS test and Word Test allegedly taken by T.S. Respondent had handwritten on the tests that they had been administered on Monday, May 1, 2000, or one week earlier. Respondent then proceeded to review the results of the tests with the parents. Based upon the test scores (which were a little above average) and T.S.'s grades in the mainstream middle school, Respondent recommended that T.S. be dismissed from the ESE program. Indeed, under the testing results, T.S. met dismissal criteria, that is, she had made enough progress in the program that she could be dismissed. As it turned out, this decision was satisfactory with the parents since they did not like Respondent and did not believe that their daughter was receiving good services from her. While the meeting was progressing, Ms. Gibson realized that the purpose of the meeting was to get permission for the testing of T.S., not to discuss test results. This realization was reinforced by the fact that the written parental consent is required by federal law to test a student's qualifications for a special education program, and the re-evaluation form had not been signed. Believing that the tests had been administered without parental permission, Ms. Gibson asked the parents to sign the form that day, but to backdate the document to May 1, when the tests were allegedly administered. The parents agreed to do so and signed the form. After the meeting was concluded, Ms. Gibson felt uncomfortable about what had transpired, including the backdating of the document. Accordingly, she reported this to James R. Polk, Jr., then the principal at UMS. At that time, she also reported that she suspected that Respondent had not actually administered the tests or that Respondent had done so improperly. This suspicion was based in part on the fact that the tests did not have any "anecdotal notes" written on them. According to the TOPS test manual, the tester should write down any response that does not closely match one of the responses that was already printed on the test protocol. This means that not only should all incorrect answers be recorded, but also any responses that do not closely match the suggested response in the test manual. The purpose of this requirement is to enable another person to verify that the scores given by the original tester are correct. It also enables the tester to later compare a student's questionable response with the test manual, and to then score it correct or incorrect. The Word Test manual further provides that "questionable or alternative responses" should be recorded. In this case, Respondent recorded nothing on the tests except whether the answers given were right or wrong. Respondent contended, however, that her practice had always been to record only those responses that were "very strange or off the wall that really didn't pertain to [the] question." Even assuming that this practice was acceptable, it is highly unusual that out of 110 questions supposedly answered by T.S., none fell within this category. A short time after meeting with Ms. Gibson, Mr. Polk summoned T.S. (who had not attended the meeting) to his office and was told by the student that she had never been tested by Respondent, nor had she been seen by Respondent for a long period of time. A telephone call the same day by Mr. Polk with T.S.'s mother corroborated this fact. On the following day, May 9, 2000, Mr. Polk met with Respondent to discuss Ms. Gibson's concerns. At that meeting, Respondent stated that she had administered the tests during homeroom period on May 1, 2000. However, homeroom period was only 22 minutes long and it would be impossible to take the student out of class, walk to the testing location, and administer two tests in less than twenty-two minutes. This is because the TOPS test contains fifty questions and takes approximately forty minutes to administer, while the Word Test contains sixty questions and takes approximately twenty to thirty minutes to complete, or a total time of at least one hour. At hearing, Respondent conceded that "[p]robably . . . it [the testing on May 1] didn't happen that way." Mr. Polk later confronted Respondent about these facts which made her claims impossible, and Respondent then indicated that she had given the wrong date, and that she had given the test during homeroom on Tuesday, May 2, 2000. Mr. Polk checked T.S.'s schedule on May 2 and learned that T.S. was in an intramural program the entire day. When presented with this information, Respondent then gave a third date - Thursday, May 4, 2000. This date was purportedly taken by Respondent from the calendar on the wall in her office. However, the sign-in sheet Respondent kept for her classroom failed to show that T.S. had signed in on that date for testing. Respondent later contended, however, that mainstream students (such as T.S.) did not have to sign in for testing. Even so, based on these circumstances, Mr. Polk concluded that the tests were never administered and thus he recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent be dismissed. This was formalized in an Appraisal II evaluation (which is used to designate areas of deficiencies) prepared by Mr. Polk on May 18, 2000, and signed by Respondent on May 22, 2000. For at least the preceding six years, Respondent had always received outstanding appraisals by her supervisors. After receiving the Appraisal II, Respondent submitted her resignation. During Respondent's deposition taken on June 24, 2003, or five weeks before the final hearing, she stated for the first time that the tests were actually administered over a two-day period, with one being given on Thursday, May 4, and the second being given on May 9, 2000 (or the day after the May 8 meeting when the test results were reviewed). At the urging of her counsel, however, she then changed these dates to May 4 and 5. In answers to interrogatories submitted by Respondent on July 7, 2003, she responded that it took only 25 to 30 minutes for T.S. to complete both tests. A letter of mitigation sent by Respondent's counsel to Petitioner on May 15, 2001, also took the same position. However, these two documents are at variance with Respondent's testimony at final hearing. At final hearing, or more than three years after the events here occurred, Respondent stated that the correct dates were sometime between April 21 (when she received the Notice) and May 8, 2000, and that the tests were administered during one of T.S.'s homeroom or elective periods. She further recollects that she pulled T.S. from her first period in homeroom (which is a 22-minute class) and administered the longer TOPS test at that time. However, because the test ran over, Respondent says the testing consumed some ten to fifteen minutes of the next period, but she had the leeway to do so since the next period was an elective class (band). She further claims that the Word Test was also begun during the band class and was eventually completed on another undisclosed date. In light of the numerous conflicting versions of events given by Respondent, and especially the multiple testing dates suggested by Respondent no more than a week after the tests were supposedly administered and when her recollection should have been the clearest, this testimony is not accepted as being credible. The more credible evidence supports a finding that Respondent either filled out the test scores during the time when she left the meeting on May 8 ostensibly for the purpose of retrieving the tests, or she filled out the test scores in whole or in part after receiving the Notice on April 21 but prior to May 8. No matter which scenario is correct, or what her motivation might have been, the fact remains that the tests were never administered to the student. Indeed, at hearing T.S. confirmed that she was certain that the tests had never been administered. Respondent's contention that T.S. and her mother fabricated their stories because of personal bias against her has been rejected. By falsifying the test scores, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of the charges specified in the Amended Administrative Complaint and that the penalty described in paragraph 29 be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert F. Sickles, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Tampa, Florida 33602-5842 Joan Stewart, Esquire Florida Education Association 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700
The Issue Whether Respondent’s employment as a school psychologist should be terminated on the grounds set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a school psychologist employed by Petitioner pursuant to a continuing contract. Respondent was first employed by Petitioner in 1968 as a guidance counselor. In 1974 she began her employment as a school psychologist. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and subject to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and UTD. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2005).2 For administrative purposes, Petitioner’s school district is divided into regions. R3 is the region to which Respondent has been assigned at the times relevant to this proceeding. In R3, each school, whether an elementary, middle, or high school, has a CST. Each such team includes an administrator, a school counselor, one or more special education teachers, a school psychologist, and other specialists as appropriate. Typically, a child is referred to the CST because he or she is experiencing difficulties, such as academic or behavioral problems. The child’s case is discussed at a CST meeting and the CST decides whether to refer the child to a school psychologist for a psychoeducational evaluation. If that decision is in the affirmative, certain background information is put together and that information is sent to the R3 office to be opened as a case file. The assigned school psychologist receives the case file, performs a psychological evaluation on the child, writes a report detailing his or her findings, and returns the case file to a staffing specialist. The staffing specialist schedules another CST meeting to determine the next appropriate step in the process, which may result in the preparation of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the student. Petitioner has adopted a manual titled “Psychological Services Procedures Manual” (the Manual) that defines the psychological services provided by Petitioner and delineates the procedures school psychologists are to follow in testing, evaluating, referring and placing students who qualify for the ESE program. The Manual also provides an evaluation report format that school psychologists are to follow. School psychologists are required to keep certain records and file certain monthly reports. They are required to report the number of evaluations and other services performed during the month on a form titled “Psychological Services Monthly Report.” They are also required to keep a case log by school for each student with an open case file at that school. The case log contains the names of children whose cases are opened at each school and the status of the case. The case log is updated monthly to reflect the status of each case. A school psychologist is an essential member of the CST and is a critical player in the development of IEPs for students who qualify for ESE. Time constraints are placed on the CST and on each school psychologist. Petitioner’s policy is that the period from the initial referral of a child to a CST to the development of the child’s IEP (for those children who qualify for ESE services) should not exceed 90 days. Since September 2004, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.0331 has required that students who are suspected of having a disability must be evaluated within a period of time, not to exceed 60 school days in which the student is in attendance. School psychologists are instructed to make every effort to complete the psychological evaluation report and to submit the report for typing within five days after the evaluation is completed. Typically, each school psychologist in R3 is responsible for two or three assigned schools. In an average week, school psychologists spend most of their time at their assigned schools, where they are required to keep the same work hours as the instructional personnel assigned to that school. At the school, the school psychologist meets with other school personnel (whether informally or as part of a CST) and evaluates students. Each school psychologist has at least one day a week at the R3 office, where he or she writes reports and consults with other R3 personnel as needed. During the R3 office day, new cases are assigned and special assignments are made. EVALUATIONS THROUGH SCHOOL YEAR 2001-02 From the school year 1990-91 through the school year 2000-01, Martha Boden was Respondent’s supervisor. For each of those school years, Ms. Boden evaluated Respondent’s performance. During those years, Ms. Boden received a myriad of complaints about Respondent’s job performance. Several school principals testified that they would not want Respondent to serve as their school psychologist based on unfavorable experiences with Respondent during the school years Ms. Boden served as her supervisor. Despite the complaints she received about Respondent, Ms. Boden evaluated Respondent’s performance as being acceptable for each year Ms. Boden supervised Respondent. Each annual evaluation of Respondent by Ms. Boden was a summative evaluation in the sense that Ms. Boden considered all information, both good and bad, that she had about Respondent’s job performance. Ms. Boden’s conclusion that Respondent was an acceptable employee for each of the years that she supervised Respondent is persuasive. The evidence presented by Petitioner as to Respondent’s job performance during the school years 1990-91 through 2000-01 does not establish the allegations set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges. That evidence does, however, establish that Respondent’s job performance was problematic and provides a context for subsequent evaluations. Ms. Boden exerted considerable effort in attempts to help Respondent improve her job performance. Respondent did not take advantage of the help Ms. Boden offered. Respondent knew from Ms. Boden that she was required to produce timely, accurate psychological evaluations and monthly reports. Myra Silverstein supervised and evaluated Respondent for the 2001-02 school year. That evaluation was also a summative evaluation and also concluded that Respondent was an acceptable employee. Ms. Silverstein’s conclusion that Respondent was an acceptable employee for the year she supervised Respondent is persuasive. The evidence presented by Petitioner as to Respondent’s job performance during the 2001-02 school year does not establish the allegations set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges. That evidence does, however, establish that Respondent’s job performance continued to be problematic and provides additional context for subsequent evaluations. DELAYED EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS During the school years subsequent to the 2001-02 school year Respondent failed, on multiple occasions, to timely evaluate and complete reports for children who were being evaluated for ESE services. At Olinda Elementary School, a student was tested by Respondent on February 23, 2004 and Respondent did not close the case until January 12, 2005. Partly because of that delay, the principal of Olinda Elementary School requested that a school psychologist other than Respondent be assigned to her school. During the 2004-05 school year, Respondent was assigned to evaluate two students at Miami Springs Elementary School. More than a year passed between the time Respondent received her assignment and the time she did the testing. During the 2003-04 school year, Respondent was assigned a case in January 2004. Respondent did not do the testing on this student until July 2004 and she did not complete her report until January 2005. At Orchard Villa Elementary, Respondent was assigned a case during the summer of 2004. As of June 2005, the case had not been closed. There was no justification for the lapses in time between the dates of assignment and the dates of completion of Respondent’s reports.3 The CSTs could not determine appropriate strategies for the students Respondent was assigned to evaluate without a psychological report. Respondent’s lapses between her assignments and the completion of her reports delayed the staffing of those students and delayed the development of and the provision of appropriate services for those students. Mary Paz, the Instructional Supervisor at the R3 office became Respondent’s supervisor in March 2004. After she assumed that responsibility, Ms. Paz received multiple complaints from principals and parents as to Respondent’s repeated failures to timely complete evaluations and/or reports. In May 2004, Ms. Paz received a memorandum from an assistant principal at Banyan Elementary School regarding an incomplete evaluation report done by Respondent. Material in the case file established that the Bender Gestalt evaluation was administered, but the Respondent’s report made no mention of that diagnostic tool. Another school psychologist was called in to complete Respondent’s report. Pamela Sanders-White was the principal of Orchard Villa Elementary School during the 2004-05 school year. Respondent was the school psychologist for that school during that school year. Ms. Sanders-White received complaints from teachers, parents, and students pertaining to Respondent’s failure to timely complete her work. Ms. Sanders-White requested that a school psychologist other than Respondent be assigned to her school for the school year 2005-06. CONFRONTATIONS AT IEP MEETINGS Petitioner presented evidence that Respondent argued with other professionals during several CST meetings and that she walked out of one such meeting. Petitioner also presented evidence that a few of Respondent's professional opinions were rejected by other professionals. That evidence, while accepted as credible, did not prove or tend to prove that Respondent was incompetent or that she was insubordinate, which are the charges alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Consequently, the proposed findings in paragraphs 22, 23, 25, and 26 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order have not been considered by the undersigned in reaching the ultimate findings of this Recommended Order. INACCURATE REPORTS Gail Pacheco has been the Chairperson for Psychological Services in R3 since the 1989-90 school year. She is not a supervisor of the R3 school psychologists, but she works with their supervisors as the supervisor’s designee in resolving problems. At Joseph Jackson’s request after he became Respondent’s supervisor in 2003, Ms. Pacheco reviewed 30 reports prepared by Respondent and monitored all 28 school psychologists in R3 for compliance with time frames for testing, preparation of psychological reports, and case closure. Each of the 30 reports prepared by Respondent and reviewed by Ms. Pacheco had at least one error.4 On May 28, 2003, Mr. Jackson requested all school psychologists, including Respondent, to select a sample evaluation report for review by the respective region chairperson. Respondent did not timely comply with Mr. Jackson’s request. When she did comply, the evaluation report she submitted contained numerous errors, including Respondent’s erroneous conclusion as to the student’s qualification for services.5 In December 2003 Dr. Sue Lee Buslinger-Clifford became the Instructional Supervisor of Psychological Services at the District office. Her job duties included the supervision of all school psychologists, which included the authority to give directives to all school psychologists, including Respondent. Dr. Buslinger-Clifford’s testimony, considered with the other evidence presented by the parties, established that Respondent failed to follow District procedures in the use of two personality or emotional assessments instruments in evaluating students. Respondent’s reports were not individualized for each student, with most of her reports using similar, standardized language. In the academic assessment of students, the reports should identify the needs of the child, the skill level of the child, and specific recommendations. Respondent’s reports often contained the same recommendations written in general, non- specific language that did not recommend the implementation of specific services for the student. Some reports were missing information and others contained limited information that was not helpful for the teacher and the members of CSTs. In addition to typographical and grammatical errors, Respondent’s reports contained test use and procedural errors. On one evaluation report Respondent misinterpreted evaluation data, which caused her to reach an erroneous conclusion as to a student’s eligibility for services.6 On some occasions, Respondent’s narrative report was inconsistent with the report of the evaluation data. Respondent had difficulty managing her time. Her student evaluations generally took longer than they should have. Dr. Buslinger-Clifford reviewed certain reports submitted by Respondent and advised Respondent as to corrections that needed to be made. Respondent did not comply with that advice. Mr. Jackson, as Respondent’s supervisor, reviewed her monthly reports for August through October, 2003, and determined that Respondent’s productivity was greatly below that of the average school psychologist, despite having a similar caseload. Mr. Jackson further determined that Respondent had a backlog that was growing each month; that some of the reports were incomplete; and that some of the reports were inconsistent or misleading. On October 31, 2003, Mr. Jackson notified Respondent in a memorandum of serious concerns that he had related to her poor job performance, and he directed Respondent to provide him with answers to certain questions pertaining to her performance7 no later than November 10, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Jackson requested information as to six specific issues. First, he wanted a written response as to an alleged incident at Westview Middle School during which Respondent got into an argument with a staffing specialist in front of a student’s parents during a CST meeting. Second, he wanted to know why three identified cases had not been completed in a timely manner and ordered her to attach the psychological reports for those students with her response. Third, he wanted her to explain her lack of productivity and provide Medicaid forms for nine students who she had evaluated. Fourth, he wanted Respondent to provide Ms. Pacheco with a copy of a recent psychological report so Ms. Pacheco could review it. Fifth, he wanted an explanation as to why she had not provided a psychological report for review when such a report had been requested of her on three occasions. Sixth, he wanted Respondent to explain why she continued to use an instrument (WIAT) that she allegedly could not score. On November 7, 2003, Respondent responded to Mr. Jackson’s memorandum and requested a 60-day extension of the deadline for her response to his questions. Respondent’s response included the following: You have demanded a written response in five (5) days to a long list of you [sic] allegations, to which you offered not [sic] proof, only conjecture, opinions, and a partially extracted table; that was delivered by registered mail on Saturday afternoon at my residence. I feel sure that this memorandum was written and typed on the MDCPS [Miami-Dade County Public School] time clock. No consideration was given for my time clock, or the release of my daily time schedule to complete such a task. The sixty-day extension period is therefore needed to consult my archives in order to give you a detailed and accurate response. I need ample time to secure financial expense; legal advisement and representation; and a typist (all of which I will be seeking reimbursement), before undertaking such a task. Mr. Jackson gave Respondent until November 14, 2003, to respond to his memorandum. That was a reasonable deadline. Respondent did not meet the deadline established by Mr. Jackson. On December 17, 2003, Respondent responded in writing to the questions Mr. Jackson had asked in his memorandum.8 Mr. Jackson was not satisfied with Respondent’s response and continued to have concerns about her job performance. Mr. Jackson’s dissatisfaction with Respondent’s response was reasonable. His continued concerns about her job performance were also reasonable. JANUARY 2004 CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD On January 15, 2004, Mr. Jackson had a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent. A CFR is a meeting of record, held by a supervisor with an employee who is or may be under investigation for possible disciplinary action, to apprise the employee of the review of the record and the possible disciplinary action, and to give the employee an opportunity to respond or append the record. At the CFR conducted January 15, 2004, Mr. Jackson discussed his continued concerns with Respondent and considered her responses (both written and verbal). Mr. Jackson prepared a memorandum dated January 22, 2004, which summarized the events that transpired at the CFR held January 15, 2004. In the memorandum, Mr. Jackson gave Respondent the following directives: Your are to be professional and courteous to all staff at all times. You are also to represent the school system in a positive light at all times. This directive begins immediately and continues indefinitely. You are to complete evaluations of each child within a week of the beginning of testing, unless approved by the Executive Director or the Instructional Supervisor of the Division of Psychological Services or the ACCESS Center 3 Chairperson. Additional testing must be approved by the Chairperson which may be suggested by you and/or the Chairperson. The additional testing is to be completed within one week of notification of the determination for more testing. A completed report of each evaluation must be submitted for typing to the ACCESS Center within two weeks after the evaluation is completed. (Day that the last assessment instrument has been administered.) All evaluations are to be correctly reflected on your monthly report (log). This directive is ongoing and will be reviewed by the 10th of each month, for the next three months. Your monthly reports/logs are to reflect increased productivity beginning with the February report, averaging a minimum of 10 psychoeducational evaluations per month, unless approved by the Executive Director. Your productivity will be reviewed monthly. If you do not have the assigned cases, you are to request cases from your ACCESS Center chairperson. You are to complete a minimum of 10 psychological evaluations during the next four weeks. The Psychological Services Monthly Report, with a copy of the completed typed report for each of the 10 evaluations attached, is to be submitted to the office of the Executive Director of the Division of Psychological Services on February 27, 2004. All psychological evaluation reports are to be completed and delivered to Ms. Gail Pacheco for review within two weeks after the day the last assessment instrument has been administered. All corrections are to be completed within two school days after they have been received from Ms. Pacheco. No case should be given to the staffing specialist for staffing until the case has been approved by Ms. Pacheco. This directive is to be implemented immediately and will be reviewed randomly by the Executive Director of the Division of Psychological Services during the next six weeks. Reviewing of all reports by the ACCESS Center Chairperson and timelines for completion will be adjusted as needed. You were referred to the Employee Assistance Program through a Supervisory Referral for performance of professional duties related to assignment failures. These directives are in effect as of the date of the conference and will be implemented to prevent adverse impact to your professional status with Miami-Dade Public Schools. In the memorandum dated January 22, 2004, Mr. Jackson advised Respondent that he would review the information in the CFR with appropriate school officials and that he would take the following additional action: All directives will be monitored as stated in the conference and in this memorandum. If you successfully complete the directives, the requirements of the directives will be adjusted to reflect the requirements of all ACCESS Center based school psychologists. If you do not successfully complete the directives, additional directives will be added to assist you in becoming the desired professional you are capable of being. MARCH 2004 CFR Mr. Jackson conducted a second CFR with Respondent on March 19, 2004. Petitioner established that there continued to be concerns with all six of the directives given to Respondent following the January 2004 CFR. As to directive 1, Mr. Jackson continued to receive complaints as to Respondent’s interaction with school-based staff. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to comply with directives 2, 3, 4, and 5. Respondent did not timely complete the evaluation of each child to whom she was assigned nor did she seek or obtain approval from the R3 chairperson for additional testing. Respondent did not submit completed psychological evaluation reports to the R3 office within two weeks of completing all of the evaluations. Respondent’s case log report reflects that 10 cases were completed but only eight evaluation reports were submitted. None of the evaluation reports on Respondent’s monthly case log report were submitted for review as required. Psychoeducational evaluation reports were not timely submitted to Ms. Pacheco for review. Numerous errors were reflected on the psychoeducational evaluation reports that were submitted. Ms. Pacheco returned the reports to Respondent with instructions to correct the reports. Respondent did not return corrected reports to Ms. Pacheco. Respondent declined to participate in the Employee Assistance Program, which was offered in Directive 6.9 In addition to re-issuing the directives that had been given at the January CFR, Mr. Jackson issued directives requiring Respondent to report to work on time, to report her presence at the school site to a designated contact person, and to complete a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) that was based on specified indicators pursuant to Petitioner’s Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System (PACES).1 In addition, Mr. Jackson changed Respondent’s schedule to reduce the number of schools she would have to travel to in order to conduct the number of evaluations Mr. Jackson had directed her to evaluate each month. This change was made in an effort to assist Respondent meet her productivity directives. MAY 2004 CFR Mr. Jackson conducted a CFR with Respondent on May 7, 2004. Petitioner established that Respondent continued to fail to meet the directives that Mr. Jackson had imposed as to productivity. Respondent’s evaluation reports and monthly case reports continued to contain procedural and substantive errors. Respondent failed to submit copies of her evaluation reports to Mr. Jackson’s office as directed. Mr. Jackson issued revised directives to Respondent. Those revised directives, which were similar to the previously issued directives, are set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 143 and are incorporated herein by reference. Again, Respondent was directed to complete a PIP on specified indicators on the PACES evaluation system. The PIP Respondent was required to complete was admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 144. ANNUAL EVALUATION FOR 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR On May 7, 2004, Mr. Jackson completed his annual evaluation of Respondent’s job performance for the 2003-04 school year.11 Part A of the evaluation form contains six domains. Mr. Jackson rated Respondent as meeting standards for each of the six domains in Part A. Those domains are “Preparation and Planning”, “Management”, “Human Relationship”, “Professional Practice”, and “Contribution to School Improvement”. Part B contains the seventh domain of “Professional Responsibilities”. For that seventh domain, Mr. Jackson rated Respondent as not meeting standards. Mr. Jackson’s overall rating of Respondent was that she did not meet standards. On the PACES evaluation form, the evaluator can make one of the following three recommendations: “Recommended for Employment”, “Not Recommended for Employment”, or “Performance Probation Carry-over.” Mr. Jackson recommended the third option, which meant that Respondent’s performance probation was to be carried over to the next school year. Respondent’s May, June, July, and August, 2004, case reports established that she continued to fail to meet productivity directives. She typically did not timely submit reports for typing and she did not complete the assigned number of evaluations. She developed a backlog for her assigned cases. SEPTEMBER 2004 CFR On September 16, 2004, Mr. Jackson had a CFR with Respondent because she had not complied with the directives that had been given to her. Dr. Buslinger-Clifford attended that meeting. Eleven revised directives, similar to the previously- issued directives, were given to her. Those revised directives are set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 165 and are incorporated by reference. Included in the directives was another PIP (Petitioner’s Exhibit 167). Mr. Jackson ordered Respondent to return 17 cases that had been assigned to her to Dr. Buslinger-Clifford for reassignment. On September 24, 2004, Respondent complied with that order and those cases were reassigned. Also as directed, Respondent reviewed with Dr. Buslinger-Clifford Respondent’s backlog of 26 other cases. Dr. Buslinger-Clifford observed that Respondent’s case files were disorganized, some contained mold, and some contained pieces of dead roaches. Respondent submitted 26 reports for typing in mid October 2004. Her October 2004 case report fails to reflect that those cases were submitted for typing. NOVEMBER 2004 CFR On November 16, 2004, Mr. Jackson had a CFR with Respondent because she had not complied with the directives that had been given to her. She had not completed her PIP; the psychological evaluation reports she submitted contained typographical, grammatical, and procedural errors; and she did not submit contact information she had been instructed to submit. Eleven revised directives, similar to the previously- issued directives, were given to her. Those revised directives are set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 188 and are incorporated by reference. On November 16, 2004, Mr. Jackson reprimanded Respondent in writing. That reprimand is set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 189, which is incorporated herein by reference. On November 17, 2004, Respondent provided Mr. Jackson with a report listing the cases that had been assigned to her. That list was not accurate because Respondent failed to list five cases that had been assigned to her. Respondent continued to fail to evaluate cases that had been assigned to her on a timely basis. Respondent’s case status reports for January and February 2005, did not follow district polices. From those reports, Mr. Jackson could not determine the status of cases that had been assigned to Respondent. FEBRUARY 2005 CFR For the school year 2004-05, Robert Kalinsky was the personnel director for R3 and DanySu Pritchett was the Administrative Director of Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS). On February 15, 2005, Ms. Pritchett conducted a CFR with Respondent at the OPS offices. Respondent, Mr. Kalinsky, Mr. Jackson, Dr. Bulsinger-Clifford, and two union representatives also attended the CFR. Petitioner’s Exhibit 206, a summary of that CFR, is hereby incorporated by reference. The summary of that CFR reflects the following statement by Ms. Pritchett: The record reflects that you have been repeatedly insubordinate and grossly insubordinate to directives issued to you by Mr. Jackson. Additionally, the record reflects your failure to complete and submit psychological evaluation reports [for] review by the required timelines and your failure to submit monthly reports/logs. . . . Mr. Kalinsy received numerous complaints from school- based personnel about Respondent’s performance. Mr. Kalinsky had difficulty locating Respondent on one occasion because Respondent was not at her scheduled location and had not informed her contact person at the school where she was going. He had difficulty locating her on another occasion because she did not timely report to work at the school site she was scheduled to serve. On March 2, 2005, Mr. Kalinsky wrote Respondent a memorandum advising her that she was in violation of directives that had been issued to her at prior CFRs. That memorandum, Petitioner’s Exhibit 214, is hereby incorporated by reference. On March 5, 2005, Mr. Kalinsky revised Respondent’s schedule so that Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays of each week were reserved for completion of prior assignments. Mr. Kalinsky directed Respondent to submit five completed cases to R3 each Friday. Mr. Kalinsky had the authority to issue that directive to Respondent. The directive was reasonable. On Friday, March 18, 2005, Respondent failed to comply with that directive. Respondent also failed to comply with Mr. Kalinsky’s directive on Friday, March 25, 2005. Mr. Kalinsky issued another memorandum to Respondent on March 31, 2005, for failing to comply with his directive. That memorandum, Petitioner’s Exhibit 222, is incorporated by reference. On May 27, 2005, in the PACES annual evaluation for the School Year 2004-05, Mr. Kalinsky rated Respondent as not meeting standards. Respondent had consistently failed to follow directives that had been issued to her as to timelines and productivity, had failed to adhere to Petitioner’s policies and procedures, and had turned in reports that contained inaccuracies, errors, and misleading information. Mr. Kalinsky did not recommend Respondent for further employment because he reasonably concluded that Respondent had not been fulfilling her professional responsibilities. Respondent’s supervisors recommended the termination of her employment as a school psychologist. Petitioner followed all applicable procedures in processing that recommendation, which resulted in the School Board action at its regular meeting on May 18, 2005, that underpins this proceeding. Dating from Ms. Boden tenure as Respondent’s supervisor in the 1990s, Petitioner made reasonable efforts to try to help Respondent improve her performance. Respondent consistently rejected those efforts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein. It is also RECOMMENDED that the Final Order terminate Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Robin Carter Millan, is eligible for the Developmental Services Program of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Robin Carter Millan, requested developmental services from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in September 1997, when she was 26 years old. The Petitioner's mother, Ann Millan, met with an intake counselor and completed a Referral/Intake Information Questionnaire. Consistent with a long-standing preference not to label her child as autistic, Mrs. Millan listed her daughter's primary disability as mental retardation. After the Petitioner submitted additional information, DCFS psychologist specialist-coordinator Jane Schiereck sent the Petitioner a letter dated March 6, 1998, notifying the Petitioner that DCFS had determined her ineligible for developmental services because the information submitted included IQ test scores exceeding the maximum for mental retardation. At the hearing, the Petitioner's mother presented evidence that the Petitioner actually has autism--a pervasive, neurologically-based developmental disability which causes severe learning, communication, and behavior disorders with age of onset during childhood. Schiereck testified that the evidence proved the Petitioner is eligible for developmental services under the category of autism. According to Schiereck, the Petitioner did not apply for services under the category of autism and that the Petitioner had to reapply under autism. The Petitioner agreed to do so. However, Schiereck also testified that the intake procedures and eligibility determination preceded the filing of an application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DCFS enter a final order determining the Petitioner eligible for developmental services. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 14th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy V. Archibald, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 100 Largo, Florida 33778-1630 Robin Carter Millan c/o Robert and Ann Millan 3963 Eagle Cove West Drive Palm Harbor, Florida 34685 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner has a developmental disability that makes him eligible to receive services from the Department of Children and Family Services pursuant to Section 393.061, Florida Statutes, et seq.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner was born in July 1993. At the time of the application for services at issue in this proceeding and at time of the hearing, Petitioner was eight years old. Petitioner's development from birth to age two was generally normal. He was walking by nine months and spoke his first words at a normal age. However, at age two Petitioner could only speak approximately 10 words and around that time he stopped speaking altogether. Petitioner communicated his wants and needs through whining and grunting. He became extremely frustrated when he was not understood. Ms. Watson became concerned about Petitioner's lack of speech, and she took Petitioner to his pediatrician. She was told that nothing was wrong with Petitioner. Around Petitioner's third birthday, Ms. Watson was told by a friend who was a nurse that Petitioner appeared to be autistic. Autistic disorder, or autism, is a type of a pervasive development disorder (PDD). As explained in the DSM-IV, "[t]he essential features of Autistic Disorder are the presence of markedly abnormal or impaired development in social interaction and communication and a markedly restricted repertoire of activity and interests." (emphasis supplied). As used in this context, "markedly" means intense and interfering to a degree that it cannot be overcome. There are other PDDs, such as Asperger's Disorder and Rett's Disorder, and each PDD has its own characteristics. A PDD which does not meet the criteria for a specific disorder, either because all of the criteria are not present or because they do not occur at a "marked" level, is diagnosed as a PDD not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). Based upon her nurse friend's comment and her own review of literature describing autism, Ms. Watson took Petitioner to Dr. Frank Lopez, a psychiatrist, for evaluation. Dr. Lopez diagnosed Petitioner with autism and informed Ms. Watson that Petitioner would likely end up in an institution because of the disorder. Dr. Lopez did not testify at the hearing nor was his report proffered. Thus, it is unknown what type of tests, if any, were administered to Petitioner by Dr. Lopez in reaching that diagnosis; and, the factors upon which Dr. Lopez based his diagnosis are also unknown. Accordingly, no weight can be given to Dr. Lopez's diagnosis. Ms. Watson was not satisfied with Dr. Lopez's prognosis so she asked Petitioner's pediatrician to order neurological tests of Petitioner. Ms. Watson then took Petitioner to Dr. Michael Pollack, a pediatric psychiatrist and neurologist, for evaluation of the test results. Dr. Pollack saw Petitioner in November 1996. Petitioner was three years old at the time. Dr. Pollack did not testify at the hearing. However, his report was received into evidence. The report includes Dr. Pollack's "impression that [Petitioner] does have autistic spectrum disorder and that he satisfies the criteria for diagnosis pervasive developmental disorder." That "impression" was based upon a history provided by Ms. Watson (which is consistent with her testimony at the hearing), a physical examination (with nothing abnormal noted), an examination of the neurological tests (with nothing abnormal noted), and an observation of Petitioner. No IQ test was performed. Around the same time, Petitioner applied for and was determined eligible to receive social services. Specifically, Petitioner was accepted into the developmentally delayed preschool program in the Orange County public school system, and he also began to receive Social Security disability income (SSDI) from the federal government. The record does not reflect the eligibility criteria for those programs. Accordingly, the fact that Petitioner was determined to be eligible for those programs is not determinative of his eligibility for developmental services under Chapter 393, Florida Statutes. As part of the review process for SSDI, Petitioner was referred to Dr. Cydney Yerushalmi for evaluation in March 1997. Petitioner was three and one half years old at the time. Dr. Yerushalmi did not diagnose Petitioner as autistic. Instead, Dr. Yerushalmi provisionally diagnosed Petitioner with PDD-NOS along with a possible mixed receptive- expressive language disorder. Dr. Yerushalmi's diagnosis was based upon the history provided to her by Ms. Watson as well as her observations and evaluation of Petitioner, which included the administration of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised test. Dr. Yerushalmi's report details her observations and evaluation of Petitioner as follows: [Petitioner] vocalized often, and was understandable by this examiner on approximately sixty percent of all occasions. During the session he verbally [requested] food, drinks and preferred toys. During the session, he often referred to this examiner as "honey," a name he often uses with others whose name he does not know. [Petitioner] does not respond to verbal cues consistently, and it is not clear whether this is a problem with receptive language or a "behavior." He very infrequently comes on command and rarely looks at others when directly requested to do so. Usually he ignores others who make requests of him. * * * Initially, [Petitioner] was not cooperative with the formal portion of the evaluation. When requests were made of him, he screamed and refused to participate. Finally, with behavioral procedures which included modeling and access to preferred activity after each response, whether correct or not, some cooperation was obtained. [Petitioner's] behavior interfered with this testing and the results were affected by his noncompliance. Some subtests were not administered; [Petitioner's] behavior was worse when tasks were difficult. Despite these problems, the results are considered to give an accurate picture of [Petitioner's] level of functioning on the behaviors sampled. Dr. Yerushalmi's diagnosis of PDD-NOS means that Petitioner did not meet all of the criteria of any particular PDD, such as autism. In this regard, a diagnosis of PDD-NOS and autism are mutually exclusive. Based upon Dr. Yerushalmi's diagnosis of PDD-NOS, Petitioner was also accepted into the Department's developmental disability program in the "high risk" category. That category is available only to children between the ages of three and five. Once a child reaches the age of five, he or she must be diagnosed with one of the disabilities specified in Section 393.063(12), Florida Statutes -- e.g., autism -- in order to continue to participate in the developmental disability program. The services provided to Petitioner by the developmental disability program were occupational (speech) therapy and behavior modification. After Petitioner turned five and became ineligible to receive developmental disability services in the "high risk" category, he reapplied to the program. The Department again referred Petitioner to Dr. Yerushalmi for evaluation. Dr. Yerushalmi evaluated Petitioner in September 2000. Dr. Yerushalmi saw significant improvement in Petitioner from her evaluation of him in 1997. She attributed this improvement to the early intervention and the dedication of Ms. Watson to Petitioner's therapies. At the evaluation, Petitioner listened to the conversation between Ms. Watson and Dr. Yerushalmi and, at times, interjected appropriate and relevant comments. During her evaluation of Petitioner, Dr. Yerushalmi was able to redirect Petitioner to the task at-hand. She was also able to administer the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Third Edition (WISC-III) to determine Petitioner's cognitive IQ level. Petitioner's scores on the WISC-III had some scatter, but not as much as would be expected of a child with autism. Indeed, the test showed his verbal skills to be higher than his performance skills. Dr. Yerushalmi did not observe the "marked" behavior and language idiosyncrasies which are typical to autistic children. In this regard, her report concluded: The criteria for Autistic Disorder require "marked" disturbance in social and language areas. [Petitioner] does show some disturbance in these areas according to his mother, but these are not felt to be "marked." He can carry on a conversation. He is alert and aware of his environment to the extent that he notices things in the environment and listens to and participates in conversations. He is functioning in the average range and his verbal scores are significantly higher than his performance scores. He has some communication difficulty, as indicated by his low score on the comprehension subtest of the WISC-III, but it is not "marked." [Petitioner] does not meet the criteria to be classified as "autistic" and does not meet other criteria for inclusion in Developmental Disabilities programs. Based upon her evaluation, Dr. Yerushalmi diagnosed Petitioner with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder not otherwise specified and obsessive-compulsive traits. Again, she did not diagnose Petitioner with autism. At the time of her evaluation, Dr. Yerushalmi was aware of a diagnosis of autism rendered by Dr. George Shultz in June 2000. Dr. Shultz did not testify at the hearing, but his report was introduced at the hearing by the Department. Dr. Shultz was unable to administer the WISC-III due to Petitioner's "impulsiveness, inability to focus, as well as impairments in [his] social skills." At the hearing, Dr. Yerushalmi opined that Dr. Shultz's inability to administer the WISC-III was the result of Petitioner's learned ability to use his bad behavior to avoid tasks that he does not want to do. This opinion is consistent with the observations in several of the school records introduced by Petitioner at the hearing. Specifically, the May 2002 behavioral assessment of Petitioner (Exhibit P23) concludes that "[i]t is felt that [Petitioner] displays these behaviors to avoid tasks he does not wish to do and to seek attention from teachers/peers." Similarly, the May 2000 occupational therapy report (Exhibit P21) detailed several occasions where Petitioner engaged in "task avoidance" and had "tantrums" when required to do things he did not want to do. Based the diagnosis and recommendation in Dr. Yerushalmi's September 2000 report, the Department denied Petitioner's application for developmental disability services. Petitioner apparently did not seek administrative review of that decision. In October 2001, Petitioner filed another application with the Department for developmental disability services. The Department again solicited Dr. Yerushalmi's recommendation. Dr. Yerushalmi did not reevaluate Petitioner, nor did she write a new report. Instead, she simply "stood by" her September 2000 report. Based upon the diagnosis and recommendation in that report, the Department again denied Petitioner's application for developmental services. This proceeding followed. In addition to the testing and evaluation referred to above, Petitioner has also been evaluated in connection with the exceptional education program at his school. The evaluations were conducted by the school's psychologists. The psychologists did not testify at the hearing, but their evaluation reports were received into evidence. None of the reports diagnose Petitioner as autistic. Indeed, the report dated September 3, 1996 (Exhibit P18), showed that Petitioner had a score of 25.5 on the Childhood Autistic Rating Scale, which is in the non-autistic range. The psychologist who conducted the evaluation noted that Petitioner made "focused eye-contact with this examiner" and concluded that "although [Petitioner] is extremely self-dedicated, and tends to perseverate on certain preferred tasks, he does not appear to meet the eligibility criteria for Autism a[s] outlined by the [DSM-IV] " Another report, dated May 11, 1999 (Exhibit P20), showed that Petitioner had scored in the 99.9th percentile in the "broad reading" area which measures both the ability to read and understand what is being read. A child with autism would not have such a high score because autistic children typically have difficulties in understanding what they are reading. Another report, dated March 24, 2000 (Exhibit P19), included Petitioner's scores on the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS). An evaluation of Petitioner by his teacher resulted in a score (or "autism quotient") of 98 on the GARS which indicated an "average probability" that Petitioner is autistic. However, an evaluation of Petitioner by Ms. Watson resulted in a score of only 57 on the GARS. Because of the significant variation between the scores, the report concluded that "a definitive diagnosis cannot be made at this time." Petitioner is in an autistic class at his school. His teacher, Amanda Scott, has witnessed numerous "autistic-like" behaviors in Petitioner, such as limited eye contact, limited social interaction with peers, and lack of compassion or awareness of others. Ms. Scott characterized Petitioner as a "text book example" of an autistic child. Ms. Scott is not a psychiatrist or psychologist. Her "diagnosis" of Petitioner is based only upon her observations of Petitioner over the past school year. Petitioner's continued participation in the exceptional education program at his school is not at issue in this proceeding and will be unaffected by the outcome of this proceeding. Petitioner also participates in regular or "main stream" classes at his school. He performs well academically in those classes but sometimes has to be removed because of his behavior problems. Petitioner has seen Dr. Stephen Commins periodically since July 1999 for his behavior problems. Dr. Commins is not a psychiatrist or psychologist; he is a medical doctor with the Division of Behavioral Pediatrics at Nemours Children's Clinic in Orlando. Dr. Commins did not testify at hearing, but the office notes from his evaluations of Petitioner were received into evidence along with a May 23, 2002, letter written by Dr. Commins. Dr. Commins did not diagnosis Petitioner with autism or any other disorder. The May 23, 2002, letter and the office notes simply reference diagnoses made by others and relayed to him by Ms. Watson. The letter states that Petitioner was diagnosed with autism in March 2000 based upon his GARS score, a fact which is not correct. See Finding of Fact 31. Accordingly, the undersigned has not given any weight to Dr. Commins' notes or letter. In addition to seeing Dr. Commins, Petitioner has been a "student" at the University of Central Florida Center for Autism and Related Disabilities since 1999. Petitioner introduced a letter at hearing from the director of the Center. The letter’s description of Petitioner's behavior problems and speech delays is consistent with the testimony of Ms. Watson, Ms. Scott, and Dr. Yerushalmi, as well as the other reports introduced at the hearing. However, the director concludes the letter with her opinion that "[Petitioner's] profile is consistent with the initial diagnosis of autistic disorder made by Dr. Yerushalmi." No weight is given to this opinion because it is based upon the premise that Dr. Yerushalmi diagnosed Petitioner with autism which, as noted above, she did not.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order that determines Petitioner ineligible for the developmental disability program and denies his application for services from the program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 18th day of July, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Notice of Charges, the Respondent was employed as an Assistant Principal in the Dade County School System and held a continuing contract as a teacher. In December 1985, while employed as Assistant Principal at the Westview Middle School, he applied for placement on the roster of eligible candidates for appointment to positions as Principal or Assistant Principal in the Dade County School system. The Respondent's application was forwarded through appropriate channels to the Office of Management Selection where it was reviewed by Mr. Coleman, the Director. Mr. Coleman determined that the Respondent's application did not include the three performance evaluations rendered on him immediately prior to the submission of the application and, since in December 1984, the school board rule regarding this subject was changed to require "exceeds performance standards" evaluations on three prior ratings for an individual to be considered for principal/assistant principal positions, Mr. Coleman called the Respondent on the phone and spoke to him about this. At this point in time, Mr. Coleman already knew about an investigation that had been conducted regarding the Respondent shortly before the submission of his application involving an allegation that the Respondent had used excessive force in the disciplining of a student and he, Mr. Coleman, was satisfied that Respondent's application was not likely to be approved. As a result, he attempted to dissuade the Respondent from submitting the application but was unable to do so. When the application was received, it had only one evaluation form attached and, as a result, Ms. Mendez, Mr. Coleman's employee, contacted the Respondent again by telephone and requested that he submit the other two evaluations. It is at this point that Respondent claims he went to his personal file, extracted the two pertinent evaluation forms considering date only, and submitted them to the school board without looking to see what the rating was that appeared thereon. When received by the school board, the three ratings in question for the period August 1982 through June 1983, August 1983 through June 1984, and August 1984 through June 1985, all reflected that the overall assessment of the Respondent was that his performance was either above or exceeded performance expectations or standards. The three applications in question were prepared by Ms. Jerkins (August 1982 through June 1983) and Mr. Berteaux (August 1983 through June 1984 and August 1984 through June 1985). Ms. Jerkins categorically denies ever having rendered an annual performance evaluation on the Respondent with an exceeds performance standard rating notwithstanding what appears on the rating form bearing her signature contained in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4, dated June 20, 1983. This form reflects an "exceeds expected performance" standard. She rated him for the period as "meets expected performance standards." She did, on March 2, 1983, rate the Respondent "outstanding" in each listed category on a reference evaluation form relating to the Respondent's application for a position of Supervisor II in Computer Education. She feels that a rating of outstanding is appropriate for this purpose but she did not then and would not now rate him as exceeding the performance standards of an Assistant Principal. It is this Assistant Principal position to which the performance evaluation form submitted by the Respondent with his application for placement on the principal's roster relates. Respondent's contention that the reference evaluation of outstanding equates to an exceeds performance rating is not supported by the facts. With respect to the 1983/84 rating, Mr. Berteaux evaluated Respondent at the end of the school year and admittedly first evaluated him as having exceeded performance standards. A copy of this performance report was forwarded to the Respondent and reflected the "exceeded standards" rating. However, before being finalized through channels, the rating was changed by Mr. Berteaux as a result of his receipt of a report of investigation into an allegation that Respondent used excessive force against a student. When the report of investigation was given to Mr. Berteaux, apparently indicating that the allegation of excessive force was well-founded, he advised the Respondent by telephone that the evaluation which previously indicated that Respondent "exceeds" performance standards would be lowered to a rating that the Respondent "meets" performance standards. This was done, and constitutes the official and final evaluation of the Respondent for that period of time. Mr. Berteaux cannot say with any certainty whether a copy of the amended evaluation form was furnished to the Respondent. However, he is certain that he personally spoke with the Respondent about it by telephone because Respondent had already gone on summer vacation when the evaluation was completed and advised him of the lowering of the performance evaluation. It is most likely that a copy of the lowered evaluation was not given to the Respondent. In fact, that form which appears in the school board's records bears a signature of the Respondent which does not appear to be his bona fide signature. There was no evidence presented by the Petitioner to establish that the 1984/85 evaluation which bears a rating of above performance expectations was inaccurate and there is no allegation in the notice of charges that any impropriety exists with regard to that evaluation form. On February 24, 1986, Respondent appeared with counsel before Judge Norman C. Rotteger, Jr., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and entered a plea of guilty to the charge of forging a U.S. Treasury check in violation of Title XVIII, U.S. Code, Section 495. A finding of guilty was entered but imposition of a sentence of confinement was withheld. Respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years. Mr. Torelli does not deny having placed his mother's name on the Social Security check made payable to her even though she had been deceased for a period in excess of one year at the time he did so. He contends, however, that a representative of the Social Security Administration office in Hollywood, Florida, to whom he spoke in regard to the disposition of the check, advised him that this was the appropriate thing to do. Respondent failed to present any evidence other than his own testimony to that effect, however. He presented the testimony of the two Social Security Administration employees with whom he allegedly spoke both of whom denied having told him to sign or cash his mother's Social Security check and both of whom contended that it is not Social Security policy to do so. Neither has ever advised a client to sign or cash a Social Security check that was not made out to them. Absent any evidence to the contrary other than the testimony of the Respondent, therefore, it is found that the Respondent did forge his mother's name to the check and cash it; that such action was without proper authority and was unlawful; and that he did so of his own volition. Respondent indicates that he has presented evidence to the U.S. Attorney which will result in the finding of guilty being vacated. Such evidence was not presented at this hearing and for the purposes of this hearing, it is found that the conviction was proper and properly entered. Both Mr. Coleman and Dr. Gray indicated that the actions of the Respondent as outlined above including the misrepresentation of his qualifications in regard to his application for placement on the principal's roster and his conviction in federal district court would have a substantial impact on Respondent's fitness to serve within the school system. Because it is imperative that the principal be able to have and place trust in his employees, Dr. Gray concluded that the Respondent's actions in both regards pose a substantial question as to his integrity and have a serious bearing on his capabilities to function as an educator. They have affected his ability to serve as a role model and as an example to his students.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore recommended that the Respondent, Edmond G. Torelli, be dismissed from employment with the School Board of Dade County effective as of the date of the final order of dismissal. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, this 9th day of October, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2071 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted in this case by Petitioner. Respondent failed to submit Proposed Findings of Fact in a timely fashion. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted but not specifically related. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 8 and 9. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 2 and 3. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 2, 4 and 5. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire School Board of Dade County Suite 301 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Edmond G. Torelli 3905 N.W. 76 Terrace Davie, Florida 33319 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is eligible to enroll in the Developmental Disabilities Program administered by the Respondent.
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 Department is the state agency charged with administering and determining eligibility for services to developmentally disabled individuals pursuant to Florida's Developmental Disabilities Prevention and Community Services Act, Chapter 393, Florida Statutes. Section 393.065, Florida Statutes. The program developed by the Department is known as the Developmental Disabilities Program. Mr. Davis is a resident of Miami, Florida, and is 20 years of age. Mr. Davis submitted an application to the Department requesting that it enroll him in its Developmental Disabilities Program and provide him services as a developmentally disabled individual. The Department evaluated Mr. Davis's application and determined that he was not eligible to receive services through the Developmental Disabilities Program. In making this determination, the Department considered a Psychiatric Evaluation Summary dated August 18, 1998, that was prepared by J.O. Pagan, M.D. Dr. Pagan stated in the summary that Mr. Davis was "diagnosed early in his life as a child with Autistic characteristics," and he noted that, throughout his life, Mr. Davis has "had symptoms associated to hyperactivity, Tics, and perseverance behaviors." According to Dr. Pagan, Mr. Davis "diagnostically belongs in the Autistic Spectrum and more specifically to the Asperger's Syndrome." In evaluating Mr. Davis's eligibility for enrollment in the Developmental Disabilities Program, the Department also considered a Multi-Disciplinary Team Report prepared by the Division of Student Services of the Miami-Dade County public school system. Mr. Davis was a student in the Miami-Dade County public school system's Exceptional Student Education program, which provides appropriate education for students with disabilities. The Multi-Disciplinary Team Report was part of a required re-evaluation performed by school personnel in order to determine Mr. Davis's psycho-educational status. The report is based on a re-evaluation of Mr. Davis conducted on March 25 and April 1, 1998, when he was 17 years of age and an 11th grade student at Coral Reef Senior High School. It is noted in the report that Mr. Davis "has been diagnosed with Aspergers Autism and Bipolar Disorder" and that he was first evaluated by the Dade County Public Schools in May 1987, at which time he had medical diagnoses "including Attention Deficit Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Affective Disorder Bipolar Type." The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Third Edition was administered to Mr. Davis during the 1998 re-evaluation. Mr. Davis obtained a Full Scale IQ of 100 on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, with a Verbal IQ of 110 and a Performance IQ of 89. The evaluator also noted in the Multi-Disciplinary Team Report that Mr. Davis "is capable of completing at least grade level academic work, yet his lack of attention and concentration often impede his progress. At present, his social skills remain underdeveloped." During his last two years in high school, Mr. Davis was classified as having the exceptionality of autism,2 and he was placed in a classroom for students with varying exceptionalities. The school system provided Mr. Davis with extensive and intensive services designed to assist him in making the transition from school to independent living and employment. The school system provided Mr. Davis with a one-on- one aide to work with him on his behavioral problems, and the school system's transition team worked with Mr. Davis to help him develop independent living skills. Mr. Davis has received training in computers and took courses at the Robert Morgan Vocation School in high-level computer programming. He graduated from Coral Reef Senior High School in June 1999. Although Mr. Davis was very successful in the program developed by the school system's transition team, he is now exhibiting some behavioral problems that he did not exhibit when he finished high school. He needs individualized support in order to live independently because his autistic tendencies are very strong, especially in the area of his behavior. Mr. Davis also needs services in the area of vocational training because his level of functioning is not yet high enough to permit him to seek employment. Mr. Davis has the potential to live independently and to be a productive member of society. He is, however, in need of community services in order to meet this potential. Mr. Davis applied to the state for vocational rehabilitation services but was denied these services because his IQ is too low.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the application of Jeffrey Davis for enrollment in the Developmental Disabilities Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 2001, 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 25th day of September, 2001.
