Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Richard A. Cohan, was employed by the Dade County School Board as a classroom teacher continuously from the time of his initial hiring in August 1970 until November 19, 1986, when he was suspended by Petitioner. During Respondent's employment with the Dade County School Board, he has taught at Shenendoah Junior High School, Booker T. Washington Junior High School, Kinloch Park Junior High School, Kensington Park Elementary School and Miami Edison Senior High School. Respondent was employed as a continuing contract teacher at Miami Edison Senior High School at all times relevant to the alleged misconduct herein. 1984-85 School Year Respondent's performance as a classroom teacher was satisfactory until the 1984-85 school year when he was absent 41 days from school. Frederick Sturgeon, Principal of Miami Edison Senior High School, made a notation concerning the absences on the Respondent's 1984/85 annual evaluation. 1985-86 School Year The Respondent's absenteeism continued into the 1985-86 school year. On November 5, 1985, Sturgeon held a conference for the record with Respondent because he had been absent 27.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Sturgeon was also concerned because Respondent failed to follow established school procedures when reporting his absences. During the 1985-86 school year, teachers who anticipated an absence were required to call a specific telephone number at the school and leave a taped message. The school secretary could check the messages during the night and arrange for any needed substitutes. The Respondent, however, usually called the school on the morning of the day he was absent. Thus, the school would have very little time in which to secure a substitute teacher who was specifically suited to teach the subject matter of the Respondent's classes. At the November 5, 1985 conference, Respondent was given specific instructions by Sturgeon to: Report any future absences to Assistant Principal Weiner personally and to discontinue calling the tape recording machine to report absences; Ensure that weekly lesson plans were available so that a substitute teacher would be able to continue with the lesson for that day; and Have on file with the school three days of "emergency lesson plans" dealing with general academic skills. On February 28, 1986, Sturgeon held another conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had been absent 5 times since the November 5, 1985 conference. On three of the days, Respondent did not call to report his intended absence. Sturgeon reiterated the same directives given Respondent during the November 5, 1985 conference. As of April 24, 1986, Respondent had been absent 58.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Because Respondent's absence pattern made it difficult to schedule a face to face conference, Sturgeon wrote a letter to Respondent expressing his concern over the high number of absences and the fact that from March 18, 1986 through April 24, 1986, there were 26 days during which the Respondent had not furnished lesson plans for his classes. Sturgeon again reiterated the directives of the November 5, 1985 conference. On May 12, 1986, a conference for the record was held with Respondent at the school board's Office of Professional Standards. Present at the conference were Assistant Principal Weiner, the Respondent, Dr. Gil (a coordinator in the office), and a union representative. The conference was held to discuss Respondent's performance assessment and future employment with the school board. The Respondent indicated his absences during the year were due to his grandmother's illness, the fact that he was not functioning well and the fact that he was taking medication for an upper respiratory illness. At the May 12, 1986 conference, the Respondent was directed to call Ms. Weinter directly to report any absences and to return his grade book to the school by May 13, 1986. Dr. Gil also determined that Respondent should be evaluated by a physician and an appointment was scheduled for the Respondent with Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist. The Respondent first saw Dr. Rousseau on May 15, 1986. On May 20, 1986, the Respondent had still not furnished the grade book to the school. Ms. Weiner directed Respondent, by way of a memorandum, to produce the grade book as previously requested. On May 30, 1986, Sturgeon completed an annual evaluation in reference to Respondent's teaching performance. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in the category of professional responsibility. On June 4, 1986, Sturgeon discussed with Respondent his most recent absences (May 29th to June 3rd) and the fact that he had not called Ms. Weiner to report them, had not provided lesson plans for two of the days and had still not provided the grade book to the school. The Respondent stated that he would comply with the directives in the future and provide his grade book to the school. Respondent was absent from June 6, 1986 until June 19, 1986. By letter dated June 11, 1986, Sturgeon requested that Respondent provide final examinations for his students and again directed that Respondent furnish the school with his grade book. On June 19, 1986, Sturgeon held a conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had not provided final examinations for his classes (one of the other teachers had to prepare the final exams), had not produced the grade book and had not provided lesson plans for use during his absences. The Respondent indicated to Sturgeon that on occasions, he attempted to contact Ms. Weiner but was unable to get through to her and at other times he forgot to contact her. The Respondent also informed Sturgeon that he was having a personal problem that he could not share with the school, and that the personal problem was having such an effect on him that he didn't feel that he could comply with the directives. On July 17, 1987, a conference was held at the school board's Office of Professional Standards, between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to review Respondent's performance over the previous school year. In Sturgeon's opinion, the Respondent's students had not been graded properly during nearly the entire year, final exams had to be administered which did not adequately assess the students' progress and the students had not reached the course objectives. At this time, the Respondent was a little more specific about the problem that he had mentioned to Sturgeon earlier and stated that he was having a mental problem and that he had experienced a series of traumatic experiences which had affected his ability to attend school. At the conclusion of the July 17, 1987 conference Sturgeon decided to recommend a short term of suspension, a medical examination and a period of controlled monitoring during the next school year. The recommendation was approved by the school board and Respondent was suspended for ten work days beginning the 1986-87 school year and was placed on probation for a 45 day monitoring period. The Respondent did not contest the suspension. 1986-87 School Year The Respondent returned to work from his suspension on September 16, 1987. Classes for the new school year had already commenced. Prior to returning to work, Respondent had gone to school and was given a teacher handbook in biology by Ms. Weiner. Respondent prepared lesson plans and tests based on the teacher handbook he had been given. When Respondent returned to school, he was given a new teacher handbook for biology. Respondent had to re-do all of his lesson plans and tests. In addition, he discovered that none of his classes had been issued textbooks. Respondent also received a folder filled with five classes worth of work for the proceeding 15 days which was assigned by the substitute teacher. On September 29, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class. Respondent was rated "acceptable" in five categories but "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This rating was based on the fact that there was no work done by the students contained in the student folders, his grade book contained only one entry grade per student for only one week and students were allowed to grade other students' essay-type examinations. Weiner gave Respondent a prescription for improving his deficiencies which included the directive that he conduct at least two formal assessments of student progress per week and maintain student folders to keep evaluative items. During October 1986, the Respondent was absent 15 days. Most of the absences were due to a severe intestinal flu which Respondent contracted. The Respondent failed to report his absences directly to Ms. Weiner as previously directed. On some occasions, the Respondent attempted to call Ms. Weiner, but could not get through to her on the telephone. When Respondent was unable to contact Ms. Weiner he would sometimes call the answer phone and leave a recorded message. On October 27, 1986, a conference for the record was held at the Office of Professional Standards between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Ms. Weiner's observation of Respondent, his continued failure to contact Ms. Weiner directly regarding absences and his failure to file emergency plans. On November 3, 1986, Sturgeon conducted an observation of the Respondent's classroom. Sturgeon rated the Respondent "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This unacceptable rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not have any student folders and had not assigned any homework. School policy required that teachers assigns homework at least twice a week. Respondent was also rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility. On November 14, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class and rated him "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. The Respondent had no student folders, did not conduct at least two formative assessments of the students per week and there were no summative assessments of the student's progress. The Respondent admitted that he did not have formal folders and that his evaluation techniques were deficient. The Respondent stated that he was unable to employ the student assessment procedures recommended given by Ms. Weiner during the first few months of the 1986-87 school year because he was in the process of "catching up" after his return from suspension and was unable to do all of those things in such a short period of time. In addition, Respondent was hindered in his attempt to catch up because he was unable to have a lot of needed items copied because at times the machines were broken and at other times teachers with current items requiring reproduction were given priority. On November 19, 1986, Petitioner suspended Respondent from his position at Miami Edison Senior High School. Beginning in the 1984-85 school year and continuing through to the 1986-87 school year, Respondent suffered from a dysthymiac disorder referred to as neurotic depression. Respondent's condition was first diagnosed by Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist, on May 15, 1986. At the insistence of Dr. Gil, Respondent went to Dr. Rousseau's office for an examination. Dr. Rousseau was chosen from a list provided to Respondent by Dr. Gil. Dr. Gil personally made the appointment for Respondent to see Dr. Rousseau. Respondent at first did not realize or believe that he was suffering from a mental illness and initially resisted the treatment provided by Dr. Rousseau. However, Dr. Rousseau was able to establish a psychotherapeutic relationship with the Respondent after a short period of time. After the doctor-patient relationship was established, Respondent decided to continue seeing Dr. Rousseau and kept weekly appointments from June, 1986 until November, 1986. Respondent was treated with individual psychotherapy and antidepressant medication. In November of 1986, Respondent stopped seeing D. Rousseau because Respondent moved to Atlanta, Georgia, shortly after being suspended. Neurotic depression is a serious mental illness of a cyclical nature which may be physically disabling while the afflicted person is in a pathological state of depression. The symptoms of a neurotic depression include extreme sadness, apathy, lack of motivation, inability to concentrate, psychomotor retardation, insomnia and loss of appetite. Respondent's periods of pathological depression were characterized by feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and an apathy toward outside activities, including his employment. During Respondent's depressive states he would isolate himself at home, withdraw from all social contact, neglect his nutrition and hygiene and suffer insomnia. At times, Respondent would be unaware of the passage of time and would have crying spells. In his depressive condition, sometimes Respondent knew what he was required to do, such as calling in to report an absence, but because of his despair and dejected mood, was unable to motivate himself to do anything. Respondent's apathy and inability to attend to his necessary duties was a direct result of his neurotic depression. Due to the depressive symptomatology, a neurotically depressed person might fail to perform required duties for a number of reasons. As a result of an inability to concentrate, the depressed person may be unable to receive and assimilate instructions. The depressed person having a desire to complete a required duty may lack the physical capacity to perform because mentally he or she feels unable to do so. Further, because of an unconscious, passive- aggressive need for punishment, a depressed person may neglect to perform a required duty. The Respondent was examined by Dr. Albert Jaslow, a psychiatrist, on September 15, 1986 at the request of Dr. Gil of the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. Jaslow confirmed that Respondent was suffering from a mental illness and found that Respondent had made progress with his treatments from Dr. Rousseau. Dr. Jaslow noted that Respondent had reached a state of "relative adjustment" and had begun to realize that it would be necessary for him to be involved in a psychotherapeutic relationship in order to control the negative behavioral aspects of his periods of depression. Dr. Rousseau believes that Respondent responded well to treatment after an initial period of resistance and lack of insight (which is a part of the depressive symptomatology). Dr. Rousseau feels that the Respondent was getting better during the course of therapy but will need to continue taking his medication and receiving psychotherapy in order to fully complete the recovery process and control any recurring symptoms of depression.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be dismissed from employment; however, said dismissal shall be held in abeyance for 2 years from the date of the Final Order contingent on the following: Respondent's present suspension shall remain in effect until the commencement of the 1987-88 school year when Respondent shall return to work; Respondent shall continued treatment with Dr. Rosseau or another qualified psychiatrist of his choice; Respondent shall maintain acceptable performance evaluation reports during the school year, overall acceptable annual evaluations and be recommended for employment by his school principal at the end of the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years. The Office of Professional Standards, Dade County Board, shall monitor the Respondent's progress and fulfillment of the terms of the Final Order. If the Office of Professional Standards provides information by letter or motion to the school board that the Respondent has failed to meet any of the terms of this Order, the school board shall, if satisfied that the information is correct, immediately effectuate Respondent's dismissal by majority vote. If Respondent meets the requirements of the Final Order, the dismissal shall be remitted without further action. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4805 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. (No finding of fact 3) Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 31. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 8360 West Flagler Street Suite 205 Miami, Florida 33144 William duFresne, Esquire 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue Suite 310 Coconut Grove, Florida 331133 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Dr. Patrick Gray Division of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue - Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33136 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
Findings Of Fact During the 1977-78 school year, the Respondent, Erma Frederick, was employed as a classroom teacher in the Dade County Public School System, assigned to Buena Vista Elementary School. On October 10, 1977, a conference was scheduled between the Respondent, United Teachers of Dade, Representative, Ms. Mattie Squire and Ms. Linda E. Stuart, Principal of Buena Vista Elementary School. During the conference, Respondent was advised that based on two years of unsatisfactory evaluations (1973-74 and 1974-75) deficiencies in her teaching performance existed which, if not corrected by December 1, 1977, would affect her status as an employee in the Dade County Public School System and which, if not corrected by December 1, a complaint of incompetency would be filed seeking Respondent's dismissal. The substance of this conference was reduced to writing by letter dated October 10, 1977, and cited the following deficiencies: Failure to maintain pupil control by establishing and maintaining discipline. Failure to file instructional plans. Failure to implement lesson plans and to present materials correctly. Failure to correctly grade student papers and maintain accurate grade books. Failure to properly maintain cumulative records and to maintain attendance and other data entries on report cards. Failure to accurately take attendance. Failure to follow class schedules. Failure to maintain supervision of pupils at all times. Based on the Respondent's failure to otherwise remedy the above cited deficiencies to Petitioner's satisfaction, Petitioner suspended Respondent from her position as an instructional teacher on March 9, 1978. Respondent, although properly noticed, failed to appear at the hearing to refute the cited deficiencies relied on by Petitioner in suspending her as an instructional employee at Buena Vista Elementary School. Based thereon, and in the absence of any evidence having been offered by Respondent to refute or otherwise negate the above-cited deficiencies, they must be, and are, considered meritorious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's appeal of her suspension by Petitioner be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence submitted and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following bindings of fact: The Respondent, Consuelo DeArmendi, holds a Rank I Florida teaching certificate #399385, expiring June 30, 1987, authorizing her to teach foreign languages in secondary education. The Respondent has been employed as a foreign language teacher by the Dade County school system for approximately eight (8) years beginning in 1978. Respondent was initially employed at Miami Palmetto Senior High School for the 1978-79 school and taught at Highland Oaks Junior High School for the 1979-80 school year. Beginning with the 1980-81 school year, Respondent taught Spanish and French at Miami Carol City Senior High School where she remained until her suspension on June 4, 1986. 1980-81 SCHOOL YEAR During the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent was late or absent from Miami Carol City Senior High School on many instances and failed to call the school office as prescribed in the Faculty Handbook. According to the handbook, which is provided to all teachers, a teacher is required to notify the school prior to leaving if the teacher is aware that he or she will be absent the following day. A teacher may also call a designated member of the clerical staff between 6:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. if they intend to be absent the following day but were unaware of the intended absence prior to leaving school. Finally, the teacher is allowed to report an unexpected absence to the school on the morning of the absence between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m. Advance notice of an absence allows the school to secure substitute teacher coverage for the class. For the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was observed and evaluated by her principal and rated "unacceptable" in preparation and planning, professional responsibility and supportive characteristics because of repeated absences and tardiness. On February 10, 1981, the principal placed the Respondent on extended annual contract for failure to improve her attendance at work and failure to comply with school policy regarding teacher absences. 1981-82 SCHOOL YEAR The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on November 11, 1981 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was found unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category VI - Teacher Student Relationships; and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on March 1, 1982 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category V - Assessment Techniques; Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships; and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on March 18, 1982 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent by Ms. Wally Lyshkov, the school district foreign language supervisor, conducted on April 15, 1982, resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. In particular, Respondent was found unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category V - Assessment Techniques and Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships. Ms. Lyshkov's observation of Respondent's teaching techniques and materials revealed that Respondent had a multi- level class (Spanish II and III combined), but only used one set of lesson plans. The lesson plans did not include the variety of activities that are usually and normally found in a multi-level class. The students tended to ignore any directions that Respondent gave and there was little, if any, exchange with the students. There was almost no activity or active participation on the part of the students, and Respondent was generally unaware of what the students were doing. During the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent received assistance and recommendations from Ms. Lyshkov on handling multi-level classes and assistance in establishing various student-directed and teacher-directed activities. In Ms. Lyshkov's opinion, the Respondent did not demonstrate an ability to deliver quality education or instruction because of her ineffectiveness in transmitting her knowledge to the students. During the 1981-82 school year, the principal became concerned with Respondent's excessive number of absences and her failure to comply with the school's procedures for calling in and reporting absences. In addition, the principal had received several complaints from students and parents concerning Respondent's excessive absences. On March 8, 1982, the principal gave her a notice of not complying with procedures and requested a formal conference to discuss Respondent's excessive absenteeism and student complaints. On June 3, 1982, Respondent was officially observed in the classroom by the principal and received an overall rating of acceptable. However, Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category VIII - Professional Responsibility, because of her consistent failure to follow guidelines in reporting her absences and her excessive number of absences which negatively impacted on the continuity of instruction provided to her students. In the Respondent's Annual Evaluation Report for the 1981-82 school year, the principal recommended that Respondent not be re-employed. The Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, professional responsibility and supportive characteristics (teacher contribution to total school program). Despite the principal's recommendation, Respondent was re-hired because she had already achieved continuing contract status. 1982-83 SCHOOL YEAR On January 26, 1983, the principal conducted a conference-for-the- record with Respondent. The conference was held because of Respondent's attendance record, lack of planning and failure to comply with instructions governing the reporting of absences. On several occasions, the Respondent failed to timely notify the school about her intention to be absent which resulted in difficulties obtaining a substitute teacher and often required another teacher to cover the Respondent's classes as well as his/her own class. In addition, teachers are required to have emergency lesson plans on file for use by substitute teachers when the primary teacher is absent. The Respondent did not have any emergency lesson plans on file. Respondent had been absent from her teaching assignment twenty-seven (27) days since the beginning of the 1982-83 school year. During the January 26, 1983 conference, Respondent informed the principal that she was taking medication (lithium) because of a manic-depressive disorder and that her most recent string of absences were due to a failure to take a proper dosage of the medication. The principal reminded Respondent of her responsibility to properly notify the school when she was going to be absent or tardy and referred her to the Employee Assistance Program. 1983-84 SCHOOL YEAR During October 1983, the Respondent was warned by the assistant principal on several occasions about her failure to properly inform the school regarding her absences. She was referred to the Faculty Handbook to review teacher's absences. Further, she was asked to prepare at least one week of emergency lesson plans to be used in her absence. Respondent did not prepare the emergency lesson plans as required. A classroom observation of Respondent conducted on November 22, 1983 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. In particular, Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category I - Preparation and Planning because she did not have adequate lesson plans for the subjects being taught. The lesson plans were not suitable for Respondent's mixed-level class because there was no distinction between student activities. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category IV - Techniques of Instruction because there was no distinction in instruction provided to the different levels and groups of students. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category V - Assessment Techniques because she did not follow school policy concerning grades which required at least one grade per week. There were only two or three grades on the roll book per student (this was the ninth week of school) and there was no rationale for the grades. Respondent did not maintain any records of student achievement other than what was on the roll book. Respondent was found "unacceptable" in Category VII - Professional Responsibility and Category VIII - Supportive Characteristics because of her excessive absences and her failure to follow proper procedure in reporting absences. The Respondent's excessive absences led to problems with continuity in student instruction as well as parental and student complaints. As a result of the observation on November 22, 1983, Respondent was given a prescription of planned activity which was designed to help her improve in these areas that had been rated unacceptable. On December 2, 1983, the Respondent was again warned by the assistant principal about reporting absences in a timely fashion. As was the case in most instances, the Respondent was absent and had failed to notify the school in a timely manner. A classroom observation of Respondent conducted on January 19, 1984 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall rating of "unacceptable". In particular, Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category V - Assessment Techniques; Category VII - Professional Responsibility; and Category VII - Supportive Characteristics. For the 1983-84 school year, the principal rated Respondent as acceptable and recommended her for employment primarily because he had noted a sharp turnaround in Respondent's performance in the second half of the school year, starting in February, 1984. The principal knew that Respondent had been hospitalized in December 1983, and believed that as long as she was receiving medical attention and taking medication, she would be capable of performing in the classroom. 1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR At the conclusion of the 1984-85 school year, the principal rated the Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment. 1985-86 SCHOOL YEAR On October 4, 1985, the principal held a conference for the record with Respondent to discuss her continued excessive absenteeism, failure to timely notify the school regarding her absences and numerous parent and student complaints regarding the instruction in Respondent's classroom. On October 4, 1985, the school year had been in session for students for twenty-two (22) days. The Respondent had been absent 10 days and had only completed one full week of school without an absence. At a conference on October 4, 1985 with the principal, Respondent indicated that she was under medication and that the problems she was experiencing would be corrected. On October 17, 1985, the assistant principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom. Respondent was rated overall as "acceptable", but was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management because of an apparent lack of control over the students in her classroom. When the assistant principal entered the classroom, the teacher was sitting at the desk and seemed to have little or no control over the students. Only four (4) or five (5) students were participating in the class discussion and the balance of the 25-30 students in the classroom were combing their hair, talking, eating or doing whatever they chose to do. When Respondent noted the presence of the assistant principal, she began to shout loudly at the class in an unsuccessful attempt to gain control. After the October 17 observation, the assistant principal gave Respondent a prescription for classroom management which required her to plan instructional activity to cover the entire hour of the class, establish a seating chart, separate talking students, plan activities with other Spanish teachers for instruction, work with the guidance counselor and make parental contacts with students who were disruptive in class. Respondent did not comply with or perform the planned activities set forth in the prescription. On November 6, 1985, the principal directed Respondent to provide a doctor's statement whenever she was absent because of illness. Respondent was absent after the directive and did not comply with it or provide an explanation for her absence. Between November, 1985 and early February, 1986, the Respondent took leave. She returned to work on February 14, 1986 and shortly thereafter continued her pattern of absences. In early March, 1986 the principal scheduled a conference for the record with Respondent for March 5, 1986 to discuss several student and parent complaints which the school had received. The Respondent was absent and did not attend the conference scheduled for March 5. Although the Respondent called the school to report an intended one day absence, the school did not hear anything from Respondent nor anything of her again until March 14, 1986. On March 14 a corrections officer contacted the school and stated that the Respondent was in the Women's Detention Center on a charge of battery and was being held pending a psychiatric examination at Jackson Memorial Hospital. Respondent was absent from her school assignment from March 5 until May 7, 1986. This absence negatively affected instructional continuity and the quality of education provided to the students in Respondent's classes. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent from her work assignment for at least eighty (80) days. At the conclusion of the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was evaluated by her principal as "unacceptable" and was not recommended for employment. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management and professional responsibility. Throughout her period of employment, Respondent has undergone psychiatric medical treatment from at least five different physicians: Dr. Martinez, Dr. Garcia-Granda, Dr. Diaz, Dr. Metcalf and Dr. Vilasusa. Respondent has been diagnosed as a manic-depressive, characterized by periods of deep depression and/or extreme elation. It was uncontroverted that Respondent has an excellent command of her academic specialities--Spanish and French.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing Respondent from employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2274 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59 (2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner. 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/orsubordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/orsubordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Brown, Esquire Suite 301 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact This matter comes on before the undersigned for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, against Robert J. Browne, Respondent. No genuine factual issue is in dispute because no communication, including an election of rights or an appearance from the Respondent, has ever been received. Pursuant to the above-cited rule, the matter was required to proceed to hearing before the undersigned for the presentation of a prima facie case by the Petitioner, regarding the establishment of the reputed facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint upon which the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's Certificate. The Administrative Complaint is dated July 1, 1981. After the Administrative Complaint was filed, various efforts were made to achieve service of the same on the Respondent. The Respondent never responded to the Administrative Complaint. Diligent search and inquiry failed to locate the Respondent, or a means or location whereby he might be served with the Complaint. Attempts to serve him at his last-known forwarding address resulted in the certi- fied mail being returned unclaimed and unforwardable. The undersigned attempted to serve notice of this proceeding itself upon the Respondent at the last known address with the same result. Service by publication of the Administrative Complaint was achieved by the Petitioner. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 440435, Post Graduate, Rank II, which expires on June 30, 1998, authorizing him to engage in the profession of teaching in the areas of mental retardation, junior college, administration, and supervision. At all times pertinent hereto, he was employed at the Exceptional Student Educational Center in Broward County, Florida, at Eastside Elementary School. The Respondent's position was that of administrator or assistant principal at the school. The Respondent was employed at the school during the summer of 1980. Mrs. Annie Turner was employed at the school as the custodian during that same summer. She worked from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. She often took her son Ronnie, who was the youngest of seven children, to the school with her during her working hours. She did this in order for him to assist her in her job duties. On an early visit to the school, Ronnie met the Respondent, Mr. Browne. They met on frequent occasions thereafter, when Ronnie was at the school with his mother and talked of sports and other things of interest to Ronnie, and they ultimately struck up a friendship. Mrs. Turner began noticing that her son would go to a distant bathroom in the school and stay an inordinate period of time. This happened on a number of occasions and she noticed that Mr. Browne would follow her son into the mens' bathroom while she was engaged in cleaning another room nearby in the school. She did not feel anything was amiss until this happened on a regular basis. Finally, on a Thursday evening (she does not remember the date), in the summer of 1980, Mr. Browne and Ronnie entered the bathroom and stayed so long she opened the door to check on her son and observed the Respondent on his knees committing a homosexual act on the person of her son. She was not observed by Mr. Browne. She ultimately informed-the County Superintendent and Mr. Browne was confronted with the subject accusation by his superiors. Sometime thereafter the Respondent resigned his position at the school. Mrs. Turner no longer respects Mr. Browne and would not want one of her children in a school where he was principal or a teacher due to her apprehension regarding their physical and emotional welfare. The testimony of Ronnie Turner corroborates that of his mother, Annie Turner, and in addition, establishes that the homosexual act observed by Mrs. Turner occurred on three (3) other occasions in a substantially similar fashion and location. The occasion when Annie Turner discovered the Respondent committing a homosexual act on her son was the fourth and last of those occasions, all of which occurred during a three-week period during the summer of 1980. Ronnie Turner sougnt on several occasions to avoid association with the Respondent during this time after he became aware of the Respondent's intentions. He would not want to attend a school at which the Respondent was employed and fears that the same fate will befall other children at any school at which the Respondent should be employed. Ronnie Turner was fourteen years of age at the time the pertinent events occurred. After the Respondent resigned from his position with the Broward County School System, there ultimately ensued an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, seeking revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Robert J. Browne, have his Teacher's Certificate in and for the State of Florida revoked permanently. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER 203-B South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert J. Browne 1771 Northeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate the Respondent, Ronnie Bell (Respondent), from his employment with the Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board (Petitioner or School Board).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with the responsibility to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County school district. Such authority includes the discipline of employees of the School Board. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was an employee of the School Board. As an employee of the School Board, the Respondent was subject to the laws, rules, and terms of the union contract pertinent to employment with the Petitioner. Nick JacAngelo is the principal of Miami Coral Park Senior High School. Mr. JacAngelo was directly responsible for the employees at the school and personally knows the Respondent. The Respondent began work at Miami Coral Park Senior High School on October 11, 2004. Employed as a custodian at the school, the Respondent was responsible for cleaning the areas assigned to him. According to Mr. JacAngelo, it came to his attention that the Respondent’s work area was not being properly cleaned and maintained. On November 19, 2004, Mr. JacAngelo informed the Respondent that his work was substandard and unacceptable. Mr. JacAngelo informed the Respondent that his work would need to improve. Additionally, the Respondent was advised as to the standard of work that would be required and expected of him in fulfilling his custodial responsibilities including job attendance. A second conference was conducted with the Respondent on December 7, 2004, to again reiterate the duties and expectations for him. The Respondent did not improve his job performance. In addition to his failure to maintain his assigned area, the Respondent was excessively absent from the work site. On January 13, 2005, the Respondent was again informed of a need to improve his job attendance and work performance. Moreover, the Respondent was advised that he could not leave the work site without authorization prior to the termination of his workday. It was expected that the Respondent perform his duties and attend to his assigned area for the entire workday. The Respondent’s work performance and attendance did not improve. On January 28, 2005, the Respondent was cited for poor job performance and insubordination in his continued refusal to improve his effort. On February 14, 2005, Mr. JacAngelo met with the Respondent to address his insubordination, defiance of authority, failure to complete assigned areas of custodial responsibility, and his unauthorized departure from the work site. Because the Respondent wanted to have his union representative present during the discussion the meeting was rescheduled. The parties met on February 15, 2005, to review the items noted above. At that time, the Respondent was reminded that his workday departure time was 11:30 p.m. He was to present for work at 2:00 p.m., take no more than half an hour break for his meal, and remain onsite the entire time. The Respondent’s work performance did not improve over time. On May 12, 2005, he was observed to be in his vehicle the majority of the work shift. He did not perform his work assignment and made no explanation for his failure to clean his area. This incident was memorialized in a memorandum dated May 18, 2005. As to this and other previous incidents, the Respondent did not deny the conduct complained. Based upon the Respondent’s failure to improve, his continued poor work performance, his numerous opportunities to correct the deficiencies, and his insubordination, Mr. JacAngelo recommended that the Respondent be terminated from his employment with the school district. Mr. JacAngelo had attempted verbal counseling, written memorandums, and official conferences with the Respondent. None of the efforts to remediate Respondent’s work performance proved successful. Mr. Carrera is the principal at South Hialeah Elementary School. Mr. Carrera was the Respondent’s supervisor at a work assignment prior to his reassignment to Miami Coral Park Senior High School. According to Mr. Carrera, the Respondent constantly left his work site early, failed to clean his assigned area, and admitted to stealing a police surveillance camera (there had been 70 cases of theft in the area the Respondent was responsible for so the police set up a camera). In short, the Respondent’s work performance at South Hialeah Elementary School was unacceptable. The Respondent was warned during his tenure at South Hialeah Elementary School that continued failure to perform his work appropriately would lead to disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent from his employment with the school district. S DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 5th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronnie R. Bell 16220 Northwest 28th Court Miami, Florida 33054 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The basic issue in this case concerns whether the Respondent's employment as a teacher with the School Board of Dade County should be terminated for reasons alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges. The principal grounds for termination alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges are incompetence and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact Background facts 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 Dade County, Florida. The Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) is the official instrument utilized by the Dade County Public Schools to measure the performance of teaching behaviors. The Respondent, Flossie M. Edwards, was first employed by the Petitioner in 1969 as a teaching assistant. She continued to be employed in that capacity until 1985. In 1985 the Respondent sat for a test offered by the Petitioner to certain members of her race, which, if passed, would permit her to assume a position as a fully certified classroom teacher. The Respondent passed the test, and became a certified teacher. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent became a teacher at South Hialeah Elementary School, where she taught for eight years. During her career with the School Board from 1969 until February 17, 1993, the Respondent did not receive a single disciplinary report, reprimand, prescriptive assessment, remediation requirement, or other formal or informal School board action indicating unsatisfactory or deficient job performance. At all times material to the issues in this case, the Respondent was employed as a teacher by the School Board and was assigned under a Professional Service Contract to South Hialeah Elementary School. The Respondent is a black female. The 1992-93 school year In September of 1992, Marie Harrison was assigned by the School Board to be the new principal at South Hialeah Elementary School. This was Ms. Harrison's first assignment as a school principal and it was the first time she had worked at South Hialeah Elementary School. Prior to her assignment as principal at South Hialeah Elementary School, Ms. Harrison had worked for the School Board for 18 years; 14 years as a teacher at Liberty City Elementary and 4 years as an assistant principal at Holmes Elementary. Ms. Harrison is a white female. On February 17, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in her mathematics classroom by Ms. Harrison. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and assessment techniques. Respondent did not have her lesson plans and the graded papers in the students' folders did not match the grades in her gradebook. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the observation report. On February 19, 1993, the Respondent wrote and delivered a handwritten letter to Ms. Harrison. The letter read as follows: Dear Mrs. Harrison: I think that you are a wonderful principal. You certainly have made a difference at South Hialeah. But I felt as though I have let you down by taking the grade book and lesson plan book home. I feel as though I should turn myself in to the police for breaking that rule. I can't face you any more. I am scared. I am having panic attacks. I would never disrespect authority or be disobedient. I am afraid to face you any more. On February 18, 1993, I left school to be alone, because I have had a hectic week. So now I have become scared to death of you. I do not know what to do. When I see you I tremble and shake because I am feeling that I have let you down. I wouldn't want anyone to know this, but I do not know where my grade book is any more. I went home and could not sleep at all, because I am the type of person who likes to cooperate and do my best. F. Edwards On February 23, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to discuss the February 17, 1993 observation and the Respondent's performance to date. During the conference, Ms. Harrison informed Respondent that she walked out on an observation scheduled for February 16, because Respondent had left her gradebook and lesson plans at home. Respondent was directed to turn them in the following morning, but failed to do so. It was noted that her student folders containing formal assessments, none of which matched grades in her gradebook, were grades posted for the second grading period. Respondent, through the Union Steward, requested and was allowed to produce identified student folders containing formal assessments; however, the graded papers produced by Respondent were inappropriately filed, making correlation to the gradebook impossible. Additionally, Respondent was reminded that due to a recent letter received, her name had been submitted to a community support agency. Respondent declined the assistance and indicated that there was nothing the school administration could do to ensure that her next observation was successful. The conference concluded with Respondent refusing to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the Memorandum summarizing the conference. Respondent was referred to the Employee Assistance Program, a program which offers assistance to employees in overcoming personal problems that may be affecting their work, because of Ms. Harrison's concern after receiving the letter from Respondent dated February 19, 1993. Ms. Harrison became concerned because Respondent referred to herself as not wanting to let her down, getting upset about her gradebook and having panic attacks because she was afraid of her. Respondent did not avail herself of this assistance. On March 22, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in her mathematics classroom by Ms. Dorothy Perrin, who was an Assistant Principal at South Hialeah Elementary at the time. Respondent was found to have satisfactorily completed all categories of assessment of that math class observation. On March 22, 1993, Respondent received a Summative Assessment and was rated deficient in preparation and planning and assessment techniques because Respondent was found unacceptable in maintaining lesson plans, student folders and maintaining a gradebook. A Summative Assessment is required after two consecutive classroom observations to aggregate data to determine whether each behavior category is acceptable or unacceptable. The Summative Assessment was based on observations of February 17, 1993 and March 22, 1993. On April 15, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in her language arts class by Ms. Harrison and was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques. The Respondent's gradebook and student folders containing formal assessments of pupil learning and progress did not match or reflect the objectives of the instruction. Respondent failed to make more than one type of assessment in the area of composition for the students (only paragraph writing was tested and used for grades for the third grading period for all students), and there were only two or three grades found for each student for the entire nine weeks grading period. Respondent was given a record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription For Performance Improvement (prescription) to help her remediate her deficiencies. She was to submit her gradebook and student folders to the principal each Monday with the preceding week's grades recorded. She was to submit test assessment and lesson plans in the area of reading, composition and mathematics each Friday for the upcoming week. The prescription commenced April 26, 1993, and was to be completed by May 6, 1993. Respondent did not comply with the prescription as directed. On April 15, 1993, a Summative Assessment was prepared, indicating that Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques because the students' work in the folders did not match the grades in the gradebook and Respondent had not recorded one grade per week as required. This Summative Assessment was based on aggregate data of the observations of March 22, 1993 and April 15, 1993. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of this assessment. On April 23, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent. The conference was held to discuss Respondent's violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and to discuss her status with the School Board at this time. It was noted the grades in Respondent's gradebook did not reflect the same grades marked on papers in the corresponding student folders and that many report card grades did not match the grades in the gradebook, once averaged. Also, it was noted that there were no grades posted in basic skills on a weekly basis, as required by the school system, and in some areas there were only four grades per student for the entire marking period. These did not match the grades in the gradebook. Respondent was offered assistance by the Union Steward and was referred to her grade level chairperson to help remediate her deficiencies. On April 23, 1993, Respondent was given a prescription to help her remediate her deficiencies in the area of professional responsibilities. She was not complying with the directive to keep her student records properly. Respondent was directed to submit to the principal each Friday test assessments and lesson plans for the upcoming week in the areas of reading, composition and mathematics. She was also directed to submit her gradebook each Monday along with student folders with the preceding week's grades recorded. Respondent was required to read School Board Rule 6Gx-13-4A-1.21,V, and submit an outline to the principal for review. She was to read the UTD/DCPS contract, Article 10, page 24, and submit a summary for review and discussion. Respondent was directed to review the South Hialeah Elementary Faculty Handbook regarding the school procedures and prepare an outline and submit it to the principal for review and discussion. Respondent was directed to maintain an updated gradebook with at least two grades per week per subject, with the grades labeled, and to submit the gradebook to the principal on a weekly basis for review. Respondent sporadically met with the principal to review the planned activities. The time line for completing the prescribed activities was by the end of the school year, June 17, 1993. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of this prescription. On April 29, 1993, Respondent was informed that the prescriptive activities submitted by her on April 27, 1993, did not comply with the activities required by the April 23, 1993 prescription. Respondent was directed to submit her gradebook along with student folders reflecting the correct grades for the areas of reading, composition and mathematics for the week of April 19 through 23 and that failure to do so would constitute violation of TADS Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, and could require additional prescriptive activities. Respondent failed to comply. On May 5, 1993, it was noted that Respondent was not complying with the requirements of the April 23, 1993 prescription. Ms. Harrison gave Respondent an extended prescription deadline of September 30, 1993. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the memorandum extending the time line. On May 10, 1993, it was noted that the prescriptive activities required for May 7, 1993 were not submitted to Ms. Harrison. On May 12, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in her language arts class by Patricia Grimsley, Principal of Charles Drew Middle School, and found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction. During this external observation, Respondent did not cover in her lesson what was written in the lesson plan and there was no indication that the lesson would be different. Respondent failed to provide students equal opportunity to participate in class by failing to call upon certain students with raised hands throughout the lesson. Respondent was given a prescription to help her remediate her deficiencies described immediately above. Respondent was directed to develop lesson plans using certain formats and submit them to the principal and to read and complete certain activities in the TADS Prescription Manual. The time line for completing these activities was May 24, 1993. On May 12, 1993, a Summative Assessment was prepared by Ms. Harrison, and Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and teacher- student relationships based on a combination of the data of classroom observations of May 12, 1993 and April 15, 1993. On May 26, 1993, an External Review of Respondent's performance was performed by Marguerite Radencich, District Reading Supervisor, and Dorothy Perrin, Assistant Principal at South Hialeah. This External Review was conducted by the two observers because Respondent had been rated unacceptable in two consecutive observations. Both external observations were conducted at the same time, with one observer coming from outside the particular school. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. It was observed that Respondent made numerous oral grammatical errors, presented fiction to the students as if it were factual, made imprecise communication with the students in this lesson dealing with homonymns by failing to spell the words so that the students could recognize the differences. (i.e., "red" and "read", "missed" and "mist", and "razed" and "raised"). This resulted in confusion for students because they were unable to know which words were used at a given point in time. Respondent's communication was also imprecise in terms of giving directions to students. On May 26, 1993, in connection with the External Review, a Summative Assessment was prepared and Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the reasons set forth immediately above. Respondent was prescribed activities to help her remediate her deficiencies. She was directed to read and complete activities in the TADS Prescription Manual and submit them to the Assistant Principal for review. She was directed to review the teacher's manual prior to commencing instruction, make a list of examples and major points to be emphasized, compile a list for a one-week period and turn it in with her lesson plans to the Principal. The time line for completing these activities was September 17, 1993. On June 3, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent. The purpose of this conference was to discuss Respondent's future employment status and job performance to date. During the conference, Respondent's External Review was reviewed with her. It was noted that because of Respondent's failure to remediate her deficiencies, she would receive an unacceptable Annual Evaluation and she was informed of the non-renewal of her Professional Service Contract. Respondent was informed that she had two years to be taken out of the prescriptive mode and that her failure to correct performance deficiencies during the subsequent year might result in termination. Respondent had no reply when she was asked how the administration could help to ensure that her next External Review would be successful. Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1992-1993 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in the categories of knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and professional responsibility. This evaluation was based on all formal observations that took place during the school year. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the Annual Evaluation. Respondent received a letter dated July 12, 1993, from the Office of Professional Standards advising that the unacceptable Annual Evaluation had resulted in a freezing of her salary level until she had satisfactorily fulfilled the terms of the prescriptions resulting in the unacceptable ratings. The 1993-94 school year On September 1, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in her language arts class by Ms. Harrison and was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and assessment techniques. Respondent did not have any lesson plans for her language arts lessons and the graded papers in students' folders did not correspond to grades in her gradebook. Respondent was given a prescription to help her remediate her deficiencies. Respondent was directed to submit to the Principal the upcoming week's test assessment for reading, composition and mathematics along with her gradebook and student folders with the preceding week's grades recorded. Respondent was directed to work with the grade level chairperson to develop weekly lesson plans to be submitted to the Principal. She was directed to complete activities in the TADS Prescription Manual and submit written responses to the Principal. Respondent was directed to videotape herself teaching a lesson to be reviewed with the grade level chairperson along with a summary of findings involving techniques used to maintain student attention obtained from viewing the videotape and submit it to the Principal. The time line for completing these prescriptive activities was October 25, 1993. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the observation report and prescription. On September 22, 1993, Respondent was informed of her noncompliance with prescriptive activities regarding her Category VII professional responsibilities prescription because Respondent failed to submit lesson plans and test assessments to the Principal; failed to submit her gradebook along with student folders to the Principal; and failed to maintain an updated gradebook with at least two grades per week per subject with skills labeled. Respondent was reminded of her failure to keep student attendance records and was directed to comply with the areas of noncompliance by September 28, 1993. On September 29, 1993, it was indicated that Respondent did not comply with the time line to submit materials requested on September 21, 1993, but Ms. Harrison found the materials the following day. Because of this, Ms. Harrison asked Respondent in the future to submit requested materials by 3:00 o'clock on the due date. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of this notice. On October 20, 1993, Respondent was advised by memorandum that the time lines for complying with the prescription for professional responsibilities issued on April 23, 1993, would be extended until January 30, 1994, due to Respondent's continued noncompliance with directives regarding this prescription. Respondent was advised that her continued noncompliance would be deemed insubordination resulting in referral to the school district for disciplinary action. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the memorandum extending the time line. On November 2, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in her math classroom in an external observation by Juan Lengomin, Region Director, and was rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. An external observation is conducted when an observer from outside the school staff is called in to make an observation utilizing the same instruments as an administrator in the school uses when conducting an official observation. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she consistently failed to correct students who had wrong answers on several addition problems. She failed to identify and address areas of confusion among students in the class. She rewarded students for inappropriate behavior. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of unnecessary delays during instruction, causing activities not to begin promptly. Respondent failed to maintain order in the classroom, students were constantly calling out answers and Respondent was constantly telling them to be quiet. Students were not paying attention and Respondent constantly called to them to pay attention throughout the class. Respondent was provided a prescription to help remediate her deficiencies. She was directed to observe the grade level chairperson and devise a list of three to five examples of activities designed to clear up areas of confusion, to utilize different words and ideas in clarification, and tailor clarification to individual students rather than the entire class, when necessary. Respondent was directed to meet with the grade level chairperson to critique the lesson and discuss the list of activities and to submit a summary of this meeting and list of examples to the Principal. She was to read and complete activities in the TADS Prescription Manual and submit them to the Principal by November 29, 1993. Respondent failed to comply with the prescription. On November 2, 1993, a Summative Assessment was prepared by Ms. Harrison based on the observations of September 21 and November 2, 1993, and Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management because many of her students were off task in their behavior, and after being redirected by Respondent the behaviors would continue or new behaviors would emerge without redirection by Respondent, resulting in many students in the classroom remaining off task during the lesson. Respondent was unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she failed to clearly explain and clarify directions and instructions to students. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the Summative Assessment Form. On November 16, 1993, Respondent was notified of her noncompliance with the prescription connected with the September 21, 1993, observation in that Respondent failed to submit prescriptive activities as required. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of this Memorandum. On December 1, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in her language arts class by Gwendolyn Bryant, Assistant Principal at South Hialeah, and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because students were working on a ditto on antonyms and Respondent failed to provide necessary background or any direct instruction on the concept of antonyms before requiring students to do the ditto sheet. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plans. The lesson plan stated that she was going to have the students read a story silently and follow up with guided questions. It never took place because the lesson was a worksheet on antonyms. Respondent was provided a prescription to help remediate her deficiencies in those areas. She was directed to read and complete activities in the TADS Prescription Manual and submit them to the Assistant Principal for review. She was to observe Ms. Karen Pollack during a language arts lesson, confer with her to discuss the strategies used, and submit a written summary to the Assistant Principal for review. She was directed to work with the Assistant Principal and Ms. Pollack to develop a step-by-step teacher-directed plan to be followed for each language arts lesson. The time line for completing the prescription was February 7, 1994. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the observation report prescription. On December 1, 1993, a Summative Assessment of Respondent was prepared by Gwendolyn Bryant, based on observations of November 2, 1993, and December 1, 1993. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction. Respondent was found unacceptable in these areas for the reasons set forth in the two immediately preceding paragraphs. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the Summative Assessment Form. On December 7, 1993, Respondent was directed to report for a conference-for-the-record in the Principal's Office on December 10, 1993. The purpose of this meeting was to address Respondent's performance assessment and future employment status with Dade County Public Schools. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of this directive. On December 16, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held in the region office because Respondent refused to attend the conference-for-the-record scheduled on December 10, 1993. During the conference, it was noted that Respondent had remained at a frozen salary status because her Annual Evaluation was unacceptable. It was noted that throughout the year she had been provided with many opportunities to help remediate her areas of unacceptable performance; however, she refused to avail herself of these opportunities. During the conference, she was informed that her deficiencies and performance remained unremediated. Respondent was advised that after two consecutive years of unremediated deficiencies, her case would be reported to the Department of Education and the District for termination procedures. It was recommended that she apply for redirection to a less stressful position. It was noted that she was continually out of compliance with prescriptive activities for Category VII, Professional Responsibilities. She was informed that this noncompliance constituted insubordination and the District would be requested to take appropriate action. During the conference, Respondent stated that she preferred not to discuss anything at this time and that "all these observations would not do any good," and that "from the time this administrator had called her names, everything had gone downhill." Respondent was reminded that following UTD/DCPS guidelines for grievances, her allegations regarding name-calling were determined to be unfounded. During the conference, Respondent stated that she could not comply with the prescriptive activity to videotape a lesson since she did not have a camcorder. However, it was noted that arrangements for taping the lesson had already been made for Respondent but she had failed to avail herself of this opportunity. It was pointed out to Respondent that the charge of insubordination was based on her refusal to comply with directives given by the administrators at the school. Respondent refused to sign acknowledging receipt of a copy of the Memorandum summarizing the conference-for-the-record. Respondent was formally observed in her language arts classroom under an External Review conducted by Norma Bossard, Executive Director of Language Arts and Reading, and Aylin R. Mendiola, Assistant Principal at South Hialeah. She was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in preparation and planning because she failed to follow the objectives and activities outlined in her lesson plan. There were several things specifically written in the lesson plan that did not take place during the lesson which showed evidence of not having effective instructional planning. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because too much of the time allotted for the lesson was spent on unnecessary delays and organizational activities such as distributing papers, collecting papers, getting ready, and sharpening pencils. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction. She failed to establish necessary background knowledge before beginning the lesson. The sequence of the lesson was confusing. Even though the lesson plan suggested that she would do vocabulary development prior to reading a story, Respondent went right into the story. A story was read, then she had students do an activity that was totally unrelated to the story and the follow-up to the story was done 30 minutes after that activity. The students were confused and did not understand what was happening and Respondent did not attempt to make any corrections or clarify their confusion. On February 14, 1994, a Summative Assessment prepared by Ms. Bossard and Ms. Mendiola rated Respondent unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs. Respondent was provided a prescription to help remediate her deficiencies. She was directed to meet with the grade level chairperson to discuss and complete lesson plans and submit them to the Assistant Principal on Mondays. She was to review a videotape entitled "Third Grade Language Arts" provided by the Management Training Office, and to submit a list of three examples of approaches to doing lessons in language arts, and submit them to the Assistant Principal for discussion and review. She was to observe a reading/language arts lesson by another third grade teacher at Miami Springs Elementary School and record the strategies relating to provision of the necessary background and sequencing of instruction, and submit it to the Assistant Principal for review. She was also directed to observe the grade level chairperson, identify strategies that promote a smooth transition without unnecessary delays, and submit them to the Assistant Principal for discussion. Additionally, she was directed to tape herself and make a list of instances in which interruptions to instruction occurred and submit the tape and analysis to the Assistant Principal for review and discussion. Although Respondent indicated that she completed these activities and turned the materials in to the grade level chairperson, the prescription directed that she turn the materials in to the Assistant Principal, and this was not done. On March 11, 1994, Respondent was advised by Ms. Harrison that the prescriptive activities due on March 5, 1994, were never submitted. She was also told that this continuous noncompliance with prescriptive activities constituted gross insubordination and would be referred to the District for appropriate action. On March 14, 1994, Respondent received official notification from the school district that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board suspension and dismissal of Respondent at the meeting of March 23, 1994, for just cause, incompetency and gross insubordination. On March 21, 1994, a conference-for-the-record was held with Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director of the Office of Professional Standards. The conference was held to discuss the pending dismissal action to be taken by the Board at its meeting of March 23, 1994. During the conference, various options were reviewed with Respondent in lieu of dismissal. The School Board suspended Respondent and took action to initiate dismissal proceedings against her on March 23, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, issue a Final Order sustaining the suspension without pay of Flossie M. Edwards and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida, without back pay. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of November, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: As noted in the Preliminary Statement, all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner have been incorporated into the findings of fact in this Recommended Order. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4: Accepted and included in findings of fact. Paragraph 5: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 6 and 7: Accepted in substance and included in findings of fact. Paragraph 8: The first six lines of this paragraph are accepted and included in the findings of fact. The remainder of Paragraph 8 consists of nine lettered sub-paragraphs. Those sub-paragraphs are addressed immediately below. Sub-paragraph a: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, the Respondent's testimony about the bookshelf incident is rejected as unreliable and the remaining evidence about that incident is too sketchy to be useful. Sub-paragraphs b, c, and d: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. In light of all of the circumstances, the Hearing Officer found Ms. Harrison's denials to be more persuasive than the testimony of the Respondent and Mr. Bell regarding the subject matter of these sub-paragraphs. Sub-paragraph e: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of the disposition of sub-paragraphs b, c, and d. Sub-paragraph f: The first sentence is accepted and the mentioned denial has been found to be credible. The second sentence is rejected because the testimony of Mr. Bell has not been found to be credible. Sub-paragraphs g, h, and i: Accepted and included in findings of fact. Paragraph 9: Accepted and included in findings of fact. Paragraph 10: The first sentence is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details because, although it is true that the Respondent complained about the way she was treated by Ms. Harrison, there is no persuasive evidence that the matters complained about actually occurred. The second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; the complaints were investigated and found to be unfounded. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted and included in findings of fact. Paragraph 13: First sentence accepted in substance and findings have been made consistent with Ms. Harrison's testimony. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 14: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance and findings have been made consistent with the referenced testimony. Paragraph 16: Accepted in part and rejected in part. It is accepted that the Respondent's performance was acceptable on March 22, 1993. However, the Respondent had at least one instance of unacceptable performance prior to March 22, 1993. Paragraph 17: Rejected as being a statement of position or argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 18, 19, and 20: Rejected as being primarily argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, most of the arguments are based on conclusions that are not warranted by the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Brown, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Number 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Stephen K. Loffredo, Esquire Suite 216, Shoreview Building 9999 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Shores, Florida 33138 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Number 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, John W. Jackson (Jackson), is a continuing contract teacher, and has been employed by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board), since 1967. During the past seven years, Jackson has been assigned to Miami Gardens Elementary School, where for the 1986-87 school year he taught fifth grade. On April 3, 1987, Lakisha Collins, a 9 year old third grade student at Miami Gardens Elementary School, reported to the principal that Jackson had picked her up, placed her on his lap, lifted her dress, and kissed her. As a consequence of these charges, Jackson was immediately removed from his position as a classroom teacher, and reassigned to the area office. On September 9, 1987, the School Board suspended Jackson without pay, and initiated this proceeding to terminate his employment. Jackson filed a timely request for a formal hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for resolution. The incident of April 3, 1987 In addition to his duties as a classroom teacher, Jackson also filled the position of supervisor for free play time on the physical education (P.E.) field during the preschool hours of 7:30 a.m. and 8:20 a.m. During free play, Jackson distributed P.E. equipment to the students and supervised their activities until their teachers arrived to collect them at the beginning of the school day. On April 3, 1987, Jackson opened the P.E. shed as usual to distribute P.E. equipment, and seated himself on a stool in front of the shed from which he could supervise the students' activities. Proximate to the shed was a hard court area where a number of students, including Lakisha Collins (Lakisha), were playing. At approximately 8:00 a.m. that morning, Jackson motioned for Lakisha to come to him. Why Jackson summoned Lakisha is a matter of serious dispute. Jackson avers that he summoned her to admonish her for having called him an "old black mother" after he had interceded in dispute she had with her playmates. Lakisha denies having called Jackson any name, and professes to have no idea why he summoned her. On this point, Lakisha's testimony is not credible. The proof demonstrated that on a prior occasion Jackson had to admonish Lakisha. Some months previous to April 3, 1986, Lakisha had given Jackson "the finger" after he had stopped a fight between her and another girl. Jackson telephoned Lakisha's mother and reported her conduct. As a consequence, Lakisha was punished by her mother for fighting, but not the vulgar gesture she made toward Jackson. Regarding the incident of April 3, 1986, Lakisha conceded on cross examination that, after she had been summoned by Jackson, he told her he was going to call her mother, and that she knew then she was going to get punished again. While under subsequent examination she denied having so testified, or claimed to have misunderstood the line of questioning, the record demonstrates that she did so testify and that the line of questioning was not subject to any misunderstanding. Based on the totality of the evidence I therefore find that Jackson summoned Lakisha because she uttered, or he thought she uttered, a profanity. I further find that, upon being confronted by Jackson, Lakisha was concerned that he would report the incident to her mother, and that she would be again punished by her mother. What occurred after Jackson summoned Lakisha is also a matter of serious dispute. Under the circumstances, however, I credit Jackson's testimony as the more credible and persuasive. While Jackson, seated on his stool, was trying to find out why Lakisha had uttered a profanity, she turned her back to him and was resting against his knee or knees, as he was holding her by both arms at her sides. While Jackson may have leaned around Lakisha to address her, he did not kiss or attempt to kiss her. Nor did he, as contended by the School Board, place her on his lap, lift her dress, touch her vagina, or otherwise commit any impropriety to her person. Jackson's prior conduct In July 1980, a parent complained that Jackson had struck her son on the buttock hard enough to leave a mark. As a consequence, a conference for the record was held and Jackson was admonished not to slap, hit or touch any child as a disciplinary measure. In October, 1983, Jackson was accused of having touched a female student on the hip and ear. Though the charges proved unsubstantiated, Jackson was again admonished not to touch any student in an improper manner. During the 1986-87 school year, the proof demonstrates that Jackson routinely used a pointer, yardstick, or his hand to tap students on the head, arm, or leg to get their attention when they were misbehaving. The taps were, however, light and not of sufficient force to harm the students. 1/ During the same time period, Jackson frequently kissed students, male and female, on the forehead or cheek when they had mastered a new skill or done well in a subject area. Occasionally, Jackson would also place a female student on his knee and kiss her cheek or hug her for the same reasons. While not done in a vulgar or personal way, Jackson's affectionate manner of complimenting students was not always well received. Not infrequently, the female students who were placed on his knee and hugged or kissed reacted negatively to his efforts and struggled to be freed. In January 1987, Jackson's actions, as discussed in paragraphs 14-16, supra, came to the attention of the principal of Miami Gardens Elementary School. As a consequence of his inquiry into the matter, Jackson was issued a letter of reprimand and was again admonished to never put his hands on any of the children to discipline them or touch them in an improper manner.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Marion L. Hurst, a black male, has been employed with the Martin County school system since 1969. He presently holds an M.S. degree in Educational Administration and a Rank II certification in administration. Petitioner lacks two hours of graduate courses to add the subject of supervision to his certification. For the past nine years, in addition to teaching social studies classes, petitioner has held the position of team leader at Stuart Middle School, being responsible for the seventh grade reading, language arts and social studies programs. This involves approximately 350 students, six teachers and one or more teacher aides. The duties of a team leader include the scheduling and "levelling" of students, scheduling special assignments to teachers within the team, coordinating information and activities from the administration to the teachers, and weekly meetings with the school administrators. The petitioner adduced evidence that his teacher evaluations during his tenure at Stuart Middle School had been good to excellent overall. In contrast, the respondent presented evidence from several of his coworkers that petitioner occasionally has communication problems with the members of his team, receives complaints from the parents of his students regarding excess paperwork by the students as opposed to teaching by petitioner, and grammatical and spelling errors on petitioner's blackboard. While it is the team leader's responsibility to schedule students, petitioner has for the past several years utilized the reading teacher, Ms. Askeland, to perform that task. The petitioner has applied for many administrative positions in the school system. In April of 1977, petitioner, along with several other persons, applied for the position of assistant principal of Martin County High School -- the only high school in the county. The job description for that position required a Rank II certification with coverage in administration, supervision or curriculum. Petitioner did hold a Rank II certification in administration at the time of his application for the position. Another applicant, Wanda Yarboro, did not hold a Rank II certification with coverage in the required fields in April, 1977. Respondent Navitsky, Superintendent of the Martin County school system, recommended to the School Board that Ms. Yarboro receive the appointment as assistant principal of Martin County High School. Either because of a lack of funding due to the reorganization of the administration at Martin County High, or because Ms. Yarboro did not hold the certification required in the job description, the School Board originally failed to approve her appointment. During the summer months of 1977, a change was being effected in the School Board policy. The change allowed instructional administrators to acquire within twelve months of assignment a certificate covering the areas in which they are placed. Ms. Yarboro's appointment as assistant principal was approved by the School Board in August of 1977, and she received her certification in administration and supervision on September 28, 1977. Conflicting evidence was adduced at the hearing on the issue of whether Dr. Clifford Rollins, a person holding a higher ranked certificate and greater administrative experience than either Ms. Yarboro or petitioner, was also a candidate for the assistant principalship of Martin County High School in April of 1977. While his name appears on several lists of candidates for this position, the greater weight of the evidence leads to the finding that Dr. Rollins was not a candidate for that position. Superintendent Navitsky, though aware of Dr. Rollins desire to return to Martin County, did not consider him a candidate. Dr. Rollins testified that he was not a candidate for the position of assistant principal of the high school. While he did express an interest in returning to the community, he did not apply for this position because he was a former principal of that school and also because he was aware that other teachers and the department chairmen wanted Ms. Yarboro, who had been at the school for some time, to be promoted to the assistant principalship. Dr. Rollins had instructed the school personnel office to keep his application file active and this fact was offered in explanation of why his name appears on the list of candidates for the position. Ms. Yarboro had formerly occupied the position of department head of social studies at Martin County High School, which position became vacant upon her promotion to assistant principal. Although the school principal had recommended that Ann Crook be promoted to department head, Superintendent Navitsky called petitioner Hurst and offered him the position. This position involved responsibility for 33 teachers. Dr. David Anderson, a member of the Martin County School Board, received numerous telephone calls from other teachers at the high school in opposition to petitioner's appointment as department head of social studies. Dr. Anderson became concerned that petitioner was being "set up" in a hostile environment which would eventually lead to poor evaluations of petitioner and dismissal from his administrative position. Anderson believed that such an appointment may not be a good way for petitioner to begin his administrative career. Thereupon, Dr. Anderson arranged a meeting with Superintendent Navitsky, petitioner, himself and several other administrators. Dr. Anderson expressed his concerns at this meeting. Mr. Navitsky offered petitioner his support if he accepted the position. After discussing the matter, petitioner decided to withdraw his name as a candidate for the department head position. Superintendent Navitsky assured petitioner that declining the position would not adversely affect his candidacy for other positions. Petitioner believed that Navitsky was making him a promise that he would be appointed to the next administrative position. Gilbert Miller, the deputy superintendent for noninstructional services, was present at the meeting and recalled that Navitsky made no promise that petitioner would receive a specific appointment at a specific time in the future, but only an indefinite promise of a future administrative position. The next administrative position applied for by petitioner occurred in July of 1978. The former principal of Indiantown Middle School, located some twenty miles west of Stuart, resigned on short notice. Seven or eight persons applied for the position. Superintendent Navitsky interviewed all the candidates, including petitioner and Dr. Clifford Rollins. As noted above, Dr. Rollins had previously been the principal at Martin County High School. He had also been a principal at another Indiantown school and had most recently been a director of teacher education and the acting chairman of the department of education at a college in West Virginia. Dr. Rollins was recommended to the School Board by Superintendent Navitsky to fill the Indiantown Middle School principalship because of his past administrative experience and his previous service with and knowledge of the school district and the Indiantown area. The School Board approved the recommendation of Dr. Rollins. All witnesses, including petitioner Hurst, agreed that Dr. Rollins had better credentials than petitioner for this position. In August of 1978, the administrative position of curriculum coordinator at Murray Middle School became available. Seven or eight persons applied for the position, including the petitioner. The duties of a curriculum coordinator at a middle school include working with teachers to help develop curriculum and choose teaching material, evaluating testing and teaching techniques, assisting and scheduling students, evaluating teachers and a general knowledge of curriculum content at all levels. The principal at Murray Middle School, Edward Sheridan, personally interviewed all candidates for the position and developed a factoring or rating sheet for each candidate. He also discussed the candidates with his assistant principal, Quilley McHardy. The candidate receiving the highest rating was Joan Gallagher and Mr. Sheridan therefore recommended her for the position. Assistant Principal McHardy, a black, concurred in the recommendation. Superintendent Navitsky recommended her to the School Board because of Mr. Sheridan's recommendation and Ms. Gallagher was appointed as the curriculum coordinator at Murray Middle School. Joan Gallagher has been in the field of education for seventeen years. Until 1974, she taught at the elementary school level. Since 1974, she had been a sixth grade teacher at Murray Middle School and was the sixth grade team leader for a few months immediately prior to her appointment as curriculum coordinator. Two witnesses who were employed at Stuart Middle School had worked with both Ms. Gallagher and petitioner Hurst. The curriculum coordinator at Stuart testified that Ms. Gallagher was superior to petitioner Hurst in scheduling techniques. Ms. Askeland, the seventh grade reading and language arts teacher at Stuart who helped petitioner with scheduling at Stuart, testified that Ms. Gallagher had a better knowledge and understanding of curriculum concepts than petitioner. In the summer or fall of 1978, several members of the Young Men's Progressive Association, a civic organization of black businessmen and professionals, met with Superintendent Navitsky regarding the lack of black teachers in high school academics and in administration. According to two witnesses who attended the meeting, Mr. Navitsky acknowledged this problem, was sympathetic to their concerns, and agreed to do what he could to remedy this situation. While these witnesses felt there had been systematic discrimination in the school system, it was acknowledged that progress had been made in the promotion and recruitment of black teachers in Martin County due to the positive efforts of Superintendent Navitsky. Joint Exhibits 1A through 1D illustrate that during the period between 1974 and 1979, black persons received the appointment to an administrative position in those instances where they were candidates sixty percent of the time. In those instances where the only candidate was black, he or she received the appointment. Also, the percentage of black administrators to the total population of administrators in the Martin County school system increased from 13.6 percent in the 1974-75 school year to 19.2 percent in the 1979-80 school year. As of the date of the hearing in this cause, one-half of the ten available administrative positions in the 1979-80 school year were filled or offered to black candidates. In two of the instances where whites were appointed, there were no black candidates for the position.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is recommended that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that the respondents did not engage in unlawful employment practices in appointing Dr. Rollins to the position of principal of Indiantown Middle School or in appointing Ms. Gallagher to the position of curriculum coordinator of Murray Middle School; dismissing petitioner's petition for relief in this cause; and denying petitioner's motion for attorney's fees. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Gamba, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1016 1451 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 33494 Douglas K. Sands, Esquire 300 Colorado Avenue Post Office Box 287 Stuart, Florida 33494 Marva A. Davis, Assistant General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center, Cricle E Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman A. Jackson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center, Circle E Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent should have been suspended and should he be dismissed from his employment with the Dade County Public Schools.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anthony White (White) began his employment with Petitioner, the School Board of Dade County, Florida (School Board) in August 1988 as a security monitor. At all material times to this proceeding White was employed by the School Board in that position and was assigned to Hialeah Senior High School. The responsibilities of a security monitor are to provide a safe environment for students and to assist in the orderly operation of the school by keeping trespassers from the school grounds and getting the students to class on time. From February 14, 1994 to June 17, 1994, Sebrina Richards was employed by the School Board at Hialeah Senior High School as a security monitor. During the course of her employment at Hialeah Senior High School, Ms. Richards worked with White and interacted with him during the course of the day. On or about March 7, 1994, White made the following explicit sexual comments and advances toward Ms. Richards: he told her that "I have some condoms in my pocket, let's go find an empty room so I can get some ass." he told her that if she engaged in sexual intercourse with him that she would be giving him her paychecks. he accused her of having sexual relations with a male co-worker. he accused her and another female security monitor of engaging in sexual relations and asked if he could watch them and join in. Ms. Richards reported White's conduct to the administration at Hialeah Senior High School shortly after the incidents occurred. Between February and March, 1994, White, in the presence of Ms. Richards, on at least four occasions, verbally harassed female students enrolled at Hialeah Senior High School, while on School Board property, by using foul and inappropriate language and making explicit sexual comments and advances. During the 1993-94 school year, in the presence of Ms. Richards, White offered to pay a female student $50 if she would engage in oral sex with him. On or about March 16, 1994, White was socializing with a female student in his personal vehicle on School Board property during school hours. On June 13, 1994, Mr. Frank Wargo, the principal at Hialeah Senior High School, made a recommendation that White be dismissed from his employment with the School Board based on White's use of foul and inappropriate language and the making of sexual comments and advances toward female students and a female Security Monitor. On July 13, 1994, a Conference-for-the-Record was held to address White's conduct. At the conference, White told the school administrators that after this was over they would not like it. The school administrators took that statement as a threat. White had been reprimanded in December, 1990 for the use of offensive and sexually-oriented language toward female students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the suspension of Anthony White as a Security Monitor with the Petitioner be upheld and that Anthony White be dismissed from his employment with the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 5th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6620 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance except as to the date that she was hired. The evidence established that she was hired in February, 1994. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Accepted except as to the dates. The evidence established that the dates were February, 1994 and March, 1994. Paragraphs 8-13: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 14: Rejected that White verbally threatened the administrators. Paragraph 15: Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony L. White 725 Northwest 129th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Gerald A. Williams, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 562 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, #403 Mimai, Florida 33132-1308
