The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 460644, covering the areas of Educational Leadership and Social Science. The license is valid through June 30, 2001. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a substitute teacher at Marathon High School in the Monroe County School District. On or about November 26, 1996, Respondent submitted an application for renewal of a Professional Florida Educator's Certificate to Petitioner's Bureau of Teacher Certification. On the application, Respondent checked "no" in response to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre or had adjudication withheld in a criminal proceeding; or are there any criminal charges now pending against you. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. By indictment of the grand jury convened in Pickens County, South Carolina, on June 22, 1995, Respondent was charged with "Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature" and with the offense of "Disturbing Schools." Respondent pled guilty to the charge of Disturbing Schools and the lesser charge of "Simple Assault and Battery" on March 18, 1996. He received a sentence of a $200 fine and a suspended 90 days jail sentence. On or about October 6, 2000, Petitioner submitted its First Request for Admissions to Respondent. Respondent failed to answer, admit, or deny the truth of the matters asserted in the request; namely, that Respondent submitted the application for renewal of a Professional Florida Educator's Certificate in the manner and form described in paragraph 3, above, and that he pled guilty to the criminal charges described in paragraph 4, above. Pursuant to Rule 1.370(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., the truth of the matters asserted in the request is conclusively established.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Graham, Esquire Graham, Moody & Sox, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Costa Lempesis 1334 Bryjo Place Charleston, South Carolina 29407 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 614 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed offenses, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, sufficient to justify the imposition of discipline with regard to Respondent's Florida educator's certificate, and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 720360, covering the area of business education, and was employed in the Santa Rosa County School system during the 2000-2001 school term as a business education teacher at Milton High School. Student S.B. was born April 19, 1983, and attended Milton High School for four years. During that time, she knew Respondent as a teacher and coach at the school. As a senior during the Fall of 2001-2002 school year, S.B. and her friend, J.N., another female student, called Respondent on the telephone as a joke. They told him they were coming to see him at his house. He said okay. That night, as the two female students left Respondent's home after staying about an hour, Respondent kissed S.B. on the mouth. Later, Respondent called S.B. at her home or placed calls to her cellular telephone on several occasions. S.B. also called Respondent. Sometimes, these telephone calls lasted for an hour or more. During the 2000-2001 school year, S.B. visited Respondent at his home on at least four and possible as much as six different occasions. Each visit occurred in the evening at Respondent's home when S.B. and Respondent were the only persons present. Respondent was a 33-year-old teacher and S.B., a 17-year-old student. Respondent and S.B. kissed and embraced each other on each of the visits by S.B. to Respondent's home. On the last visit, Respondent removed S.B.'s shirt, fondled her breasts through her bra and touched her vaginal area through her clothing. Respondent laid on top of S.B. and pressed his penis against her vagina through their clothing. Respondent professed his love for S.B. and talked to her about a future together following her graduation from high school. Respondent and S.B.'s relationship became the subject of rumors at Milton High School in March of 2001. Approximately three teachers had conversations with the Milton High School assistant principal that something was going on between S.B. and Respondent. The assistant principal confronted Respondent on March 16, 2001. Respondent denied any involvement with the two female students, S.B. and J.N., beyond two visits with them at his home where, he claimed, nothing happened between him and S.B. The assistant principal spoke with S.B. on March 16, 2001, and again confronted Respondent. This time, Respondent confessed to the relationship. He admitted to three or four occasions when he had kissed S.B. in the course of her visits to his house and that he had rubbed her breasts over her shirt. Respondent's improper conduct with S.B. became common knowledge among faculty, parents, and students at Milton High School. As a result of his admitted misconduct with S.B., the Santa Rosa County School District suspended Respondent on April 12, 2001, and that suspension continues in effect pending the outcome of this proceeding. Respondent's actions with regard to S.B. is immoral. A 33-year-old male teacher kissing, fondling, and hugging a 17-year-old student is an act of moral turpitude. Respondent's involvement with S.B. and the resulting publicity have seriously reduced Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent's conduct and actions with S.B. exposed the student to conditions which were, or could have been, harmful to her mental and physical health. Respondent's actions knowingly and intentionally exposed S.B. to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Respondent exploited his relationship with S.B. for personal gain. Respondent carried on a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old girl in order to satisfy his own romantic and sexual desires.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate No. 720360. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined in accordance with Sections 231.262(6) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, for alleged acts of misconduct as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint, dated May 19, 1993, in violation of Sections 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and the Florida Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 454394, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Junior High School Science, and Administration and Supervision, which is valid through June 30, 1994. At all times pertinent to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Mary Elementary School in the Seminole County School District. On or about March 14, 1988, Respondent was arrested in Volusia County, Florida, and charged with Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority and Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child. A Felony Arrest Warrant for Respondent was issued by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, dated March 11, 1988. An Information was thereupon filed against Respondent in the case of State of Florida v. Larry O. Williams, Case No. 88-17776, and it charged Respondent with two (2) offenses: Count I: Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Familial or Custodial Authority, and Count II: Committing a Lewd and Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child. The state issued a Nolle Prosequi to the charge of Sexual Activity with a Child. Respondent entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to the lesser included charge in Count II of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child, a third degree felony. On or about April 16, 1990, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Act in the Presence of a Child by the circuit court. He was sentenced to serve three (3) years probation, pay $41.00 per month for the cost of supervision, pay $225.00 in court costs and fines, and successfully complete sexual offender counseling. He was also ordered to have no further contact with the victim or any other individuals involved in the case. Detective Diana Floyd, with the Edgewater Police Department, was one of the detectives who assisted in the investigation of Respondent. The victim of the criminal activity by Respondent was Kristina Adkins. Detective Diana Floyd interviewed Kristina Adkins as part of her investigation on March 9, 1988. or about March 15, 1988, the Respondent was suspended with pay by the Seminole County Superintendent of Schools, Robert W. Hughes. On or about March 24, 1988, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the School Board of Seminole County. Respondent was on an annual contract, and his contract called for a renewal each year. The School Board, on or about March 24, 1988, decided not to renew his contract for the following school year. During the 1987-1988 school year, Naomi Whitker was a fifth grade student at Lake Mary Elementary School, and was frequently in Respondent's classroom because her best friend, Cristie Braddy, was a student in Respondent's class. At that time, Naomi Whitker was ten years of age. Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy would regularly assist in Respondent's classroom, generally after school. On a regular basis, Respondent would touch Naomi Whitker's buttocks and hug her while she was in his classroom. This occurred during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School. The student would put her arms around Respondent's waist, and he would put his hands around her back and then move them slowly down until he touched her buttocks. Naomi Whitker did not think that it was right for a teacher to touch her in that way, and she felt uncomfortable and confused. A similar incident occurred when Respondent hugged Naomi and grabbed her buttocks as he was dropping the two girls off after taking them to dance class. On one occasion in late February or early March, 1988, Naomi was hanging up something on Respondent's classroom wall, and was standing on a chair. Respondent came over, reached under her clothing, and put his hands on her stomach while he was holding her. As a result of this touching of Naomi's stomach, she turned and ran out of the class. She felt afraid, angry, and embarrassed. She did not tell him to stop, but was so afraid that she ran out of the room. On another occasion, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker, Cristie Braddy, and another girl out during the 1987-1988 school year to Monday night skate night, and to Show Biz Pizza thereafter. Respondent paid for the entire evening. As they were driving Respondent asked Cristie if she had any underwear on. Respondent also told Cristie that he was not wearing any underwear either. Cristie Braddy, a student in Respondent's fifth grade class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, and best friend of Naomi Whitker at that time, was touched by Respondent. He would rub Cristie's back and stomach and then go down to her buttocks. He would also rub her shoulders. Respondent also touched Cristie Braddy outside of the classroom, specifically at Show Biz Pizza, where he touched her back and shoulders. Also on a school sponsored camping trip he rubbed Cristie Braddy and touched her on the outside of her clothes, when he touched her back and shoulders, but on the inside when he touched her stomach. The touching of Cristie Braddy by Respondent occurred during the entire 1987-1988 school year, and was not an isolated incident. It occurred on a daily basis. On separate occasions, Respondent asked Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to come over to his apartment, and help clean it. However, they declined. On another occasion, Respondent gave Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy a silver ring which said "love" on it. In handing the ring to Naomi and Cristie, Respondent said that he wanted them to have it because "I love you". Also during the 1987-1988 school year at Lake Mary Elementary School, Respondent invited Naomi Whitker and Cristie Braddy to the beach or to the mall with him, but they did not go with him. Respondent made inappropriate comments to students in his classroom. For example, he would talk about how he and his wife got divorced because she would not have sex with him. He would also look at Naomi, and say that she needed to shave her legs, or that she was in a bad mood because she was beginning her period. He would also ask about whether the girls were kissing boys. On another occasion in Respondent's fifth grade classroom at Lake Mary Elementary School, Cristie Braddy was sitting in the teacher's chair. Respondent came up from behind her and sat on the chair directly behind her with his legs spread around her. Cristie Braddy quickly jumped out of the chair and went to a different part of the room. Monica Graham, a student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary class at Lake Mary Elementary School in the 1987-1988 school year, was also touched by Respondent. Respondent touched Monica Graham inappropriately on the shoulders and buttocks on the outside of her clothing, and on one occasion, he pinched her buttocks. Monica Graham, as a result of the touching by Respondent, felt weird and embarrassed because he did it to her in front of the other students. She was also angry and hurt by Respondent touching her. On the same camping trip that Christie Braddy and Monica Graham attended, Respondent, who was a chaperon, told the girls on the camping trip that if they got scared at night, they could come sleep in his tent. Respondent invited Monica Graham to go swimming at his house, and one night asked if she wanted to come over and eat dinner with him. Monica Graham did not go because she told her parents, and they said it was inappropriate. Respondent gave Monica Graham his home phone number. He told Monica it was for help in homework, but when she called, he did not talk about homework. Tiffany Gormly, a fifth grade student in Respondent's fifth grade elementary school class at Lake Mary Elementary School during the 1987-1988 school year, was touched by Respondent. Respondent rubbed her shoulders, and tried to hold her hand. When Respondent tried to hold Tiffany Gormly's hand, she kicked him. As a result of Respondent's touching Tiffany Gormly, she felt uncomfortable and embarrassed. There were other students in front of her when Respondent rubbed her shoulders. She was angry, and told Respondent to stop. Respondent also invited Tiffany Gormly to come to his apartment and go swimming. It bothered her, and she did not go. On occasion, Respondent would look under the long table where students sat, as they watched movies in his classroom, and would try to look up the dresses of the girls.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Larry O. Williams is not guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; but is guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes, for having been convicted of a felony; and is guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, due to his inappropriate touching and conduct with four of his students. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for the above violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2215 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 114, 116, 117. Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43. Rejected as irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 7(in part), 8 (in part), 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 55, 63, 67, 70, 71, 77, 78, 79, 90, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire BOND & BOYD, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry O. Williams 403 North Monroe Street Versailles, Missouri 65084 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly considered prior teaching experience when calculating an appropriate salary for Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact All Petitioners were employed by the Board as full-time Florida certified public school teachers under a series of successive annual contracts. The Board operates under a Collective Bargaining Agreement known as the "Master Contract." The Master Contract includes, among other things, a salary schedule that is the result of negotiations with the Escambia Educational Association (EEA), the collective bargaining agent that represents teachers. A negotiated salary schedule is then recommended by the superintendent of Escambia County Schools pursuant to Subsection 1012.27(2), Florida Statutes (2007), to the Board for approval and adoption. The salary schedule adopted by the Board governs the compensation payable to instructional personnel. The salary schedule includes "steps" with corresponding "salary." Placement on the salary schedule step depends, in part, upon prior teaching experience. Generally, more prior teaching experience credited for placement on the schedule results in a higher level of compensation. All Petitioners received an annual instructional contract under the authority of Subsection 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, or later, Subsection 1012.33(3), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' annual instructional contracts set forth the contract salary on an annual basis payable through 12 monthly installments. The contracts specify the number of days to be worked and the daily rate of compensation. The Board's standard form contract provides that "[t]his annual contract shall be deemed amended to comply with all laws, all lawful rules of the State Board of Education, all lawful rules and actions of the School Board and all terms of an applicable ratified collective-bargaining agreement." All Petitioners performed the agreed-upon instructional services and, individually, were paid the agreed-upon contractual amount, as provided in the "Master Contract 1999-2002" or "Master Contract 2004-2007," as appropriate. This included the amount paid for years of service or "steps" as provided in the Master Contracts. Petitioners Davis, Elleard, Lanier, Malone, Outzen, and Taylor, however, protested the steps they were assigned. As shall be addressed below, the Master Contract allowance for steps was less than that required by Florida law subsequent to July 1, 2001. Petitioners' annual instructional contracts specify the salary paid through 12 monthly installments with a daily rate of compensation identified. The amount of compensation can be further broken down into an hourly rate based upon 7.5 hours per day, and provides for annual leave and sick leave. As is customary, if the employee takes leave and has no accrued leave balance, her pay will be reduced to compensate for the hours of leave without pay taken. The Board maintains ledgers with all the compensation information for its employees, including Petitioners. Petitioner Margaret Benson has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August of 2002. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Benson was a full-time public school teacher in New Jersey and Tennessee for 17 years. For each of those 17 years, Ms. Benson received satisfactory performance evaluations. Upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Benson was given credit for 15 of the 17 years of her prior teaching experience. Ms. Benson has requested that the Board recognize each of her 17 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized one additional year of Ms. Benson's experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. There is no evidence in the record as to whether Ms. Benson requested recognition of her entire teaching service, prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Petitioner Reba Davis was employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Davis was a full-time public school teacher in Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky for 25 years. For each of those 25 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Davis received satisfactory performance evaluations. Upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Davis was given credit for all but five years of her prior teaching experience. Ms. Davis has requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. The Board has denied the request for the period of 2003-2005 school years. Ms. Davis retired from teaching in 2005, but is not using the five years of teaching credit toward her retirement benefit, which was earned outside the State of Florida. At the time she began her service with the Board Ms. Davis made inquiry with Mary Helen Fryman of the Board's Human Resources Office as to why she was not given credit for all of her prior experience. She was informed by Ms. Fryman that the matter was, "Still under negotiation and that she knew I would be given . . . my experience for my years in Florida." She made additional inquiries of the teachers union and the Board and was told that, "They were still in the bargaining stages and they were still not clear." Petitioner Deborah Elleard has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2003. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Elleard was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 29 years. For each of those 29 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Elleard received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Elleard retired from the State of Alabama and when hired by the Board, Ms. Elleard was not given credit for her 29 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Elleard has requested that the Board recognize each of her 29 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized her 29 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2003 through May 31, 2006. When Ms. Elleard was hired she made inquiry as to why she was not receiving credit for her 29 years of teaching service. She was informed then and several times thereafter that the Board was working on the matter and that it would be resolved. Petitioner Deborah Gregory was employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher beginning August 2002 until her resignation following the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. Prior to her employment with the Board during the relevant time, Ms. Gregory was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama, Escambia County, and Orange County for 16 years. For each of those 16 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Gregory received satisfactory performance evaluations. Upon being hired by the Board in 2002, Ms. Gregory was given credit for 15 of her 16 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Gregory has requested that the Board recognize each of her 16 years of teaching service. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. There is no evidence in the record as to when or if Ms. Gregory requested recognition of her entire teaching service. Petitioner Ida Lanier has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2001. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Lanier was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 25 years. For each of those 25 years as a full-time public school teacher, Ms. Lanier received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Lanier retired from the State of Alabama, and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Lanier was denied credit for her 25 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Lanier has requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized Ms. Lanier's 25 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. When she was hired, Ms. Lanier inquired as to why she did not get credit for prior service and she was told it was because she was retired from another state. She was informed that the collective bargaining agreement prevented the credit but that the situation might change. She continued over time to make inquiry to both her union and the Board. Petitioner Phyllis Malone has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2003. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Malone was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 25 years. For each of those 25 years, Ms. Malone received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Malone retired from the State of Alabama and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Malone was given credit for 15 of her 25 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Malone requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. In August 2006, the Board recognized each of her 25 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. Ms. Malone had conversations with the Board's Human Resources Office and wrote a letter to Dr. Scott of the Board and talked to Judy Fung of the Board, inquiring as to why she was not receiving credit for past experience. During the time she taught, she continued to make inquiries. Petitioner Vicki Outzen has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since August 2002. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Outzen was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 25 years. For each of those 25 years, Ms. Outzen received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Outzen retired from the State of Alabama and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Outzen was not given credit for her 25 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Outzen has requested that the Board recognize each of her 25 years of teaching service. In March or April 2007, the Board recognized Ms. Outzen's 25 years of experience effective June 1, 2006. The Board has denied the request for the period of August 2002 through May 31, 2006. Ms. Outzen made inquiries of the Board at the time she was hired and continuously during her employment with regard to the Board's refusal to give her the requested credit. She was informed that negotiations with the union were in progress and that she should continue to "check back" with the Board. She continually checked back with Ms. Fryman, Director of Human Resources at the Board, and was told in a letter that because she was retired from another state she must start teaching at step zero. Petitioner Janet Taylor has been employed by the Board as a full-time public school teacher since September 11, 2002. Prior to her employment with the Board, Ms. Taylor was a full-time public school teacher in Alabama for 30 years. For each of those 30 years, Ms. Taylor received satisfactory performance evaluations. Ms. Taylor retired from the State of Alabama and upon being hired by the Board, Ms. Taylor was not given credit for her 30 years of prior teaching experience. Ms. Taylor has requested that the Board recognize each of her 30 years of teaching service. Respondent has failed to recognize any of Ms. Taylor's prior years of teaching experience. The Board led Ms. Taylor to believe that she would be notified by the Board when she would be eligible to receive credit for prior teaching experience. For the years Petitioners are seeking credit, those years were not earned under the Florida Retirement System (FRS) as codified in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2007). If the Petitioners had been paid as they assert, the Board would be required to pay Petitioners as follows: Margaret Benson for an additional step for school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $3,308. Reba Davis for five steps for school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. This amount totals $11,423. Deborah Elleard for 29 steps for school years 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $52,895. Deborah Gregory for one step for school years 2002- 2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $3,308. Ida Lanier for 25 steps for school years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $83,561. Phyllis Malone for 10 steps for school years 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $28,692. Vicki Outzen for 26 steps for school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. This amount totals $66,338. Janet Taylor for 30 steps for school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008. This amount totals $101,427.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Escambia County School Board recalculate Petitioners' salary as of April 2, 2005, so that their salaries reflect the amount each should have earned if Petitioners had been given credit for each year of full-time public school teaching service earned in the State of Florida or outside the state, and pay them that amount. It is further recommended that Petitioners receive pay at all future times as provided by Subsection 1012.33(3)(g), Florida Statutes (2007), and this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the Escambia County School Board remit to Petitioners a reasonable attorney's fee. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 21st day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine & Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502-5782
Findings Of Fact Based on the Respondent's admissions in the Election of Rights form and on the exhibits and testimony received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 554716 covering the subject of Spanish, issued September 29, 1986, and valid through June 30, 1991. At all times material hereto, the Respondent taught in the Hillsborough County, Florida, school district at Middleton Junior High School. On or about March 23, 1981, the Respondent was arrested by the Lumberton, North Carolina, Police Department and charged with forgery. On or about June 6, 1984, the Respondent submitted an Application for a Teaching Position to the Hillsborough County (Florida) Public Schools in which she certified that she had never been arrested for a criminal offense. On or about June 28, 1984, June 27, 1985, and July 23, 1985, the Respondent submitted applications for teacher's certificates to the Department of Education of the State of Florida in which she certified that she neither had been convicted, nor had adjudication withheld, of a criminal offense. On or about December 10, 1986, the Respondent was arrested by the Tampa (Florida) Police Department and charged with grand theft and uttering a forged instrument. On or about May 28, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty before the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, to one count of grand theft in violation of Section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and 18 counts of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes. Said court thereupon adjudicated the Respondent guilty of said felonies and sentenced her to six months community control and four and one-half years probation. On or about February 23, 1988, the Respondent was arrested by the University of South Florida Police Department, Tampa, Florida, and charged with four counts of uttering a forged instrument. In or about May, 1988, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty by the Circuit Court of having violated the terms of her probation in violation of Section 948.06, Florida Statutes, and she was sentenced to three years in prison.
Recommendation Based on all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations described in the foregoing conclusions of law and permanently revoking the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 22nd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2993 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings submitted by all parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. (The evidence in support of these proposed findings does not even reach the level of competent substantial evidence.) Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10: Rejected as irrelevant in view of the lack of proof regarding paragraph 9. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted in substance, with some incorrect details modified. Paragraphs 13 and 14: Accepted. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings proposed by Respondent (None.) COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemary E. Armstrong and Catherine Peek McEwen 401 South Florida Avenue Post Office Box 3273 Tampa, Florida 33601-3273 Iris Locklear Zapata Florida Correctional Institution Post Office Box 147 Lowell, Florida 32663 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Professional Education Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Subtest") of the Florida Teacher Certification Examination tests the examinees' mastery and knowledge of general teaching methods and strategies. It is offered four times a year. The Subtest consists of approximately 130 to 135 multiple choice questions (each with four choices from which the examinees must choose the correct answer). The questions are printed in a question booklet. There is a separate answer sheet on which examinees record their answers to these questions by blackening, with a pencil, the appropriate bubble. Examinees are given two and a half hours to complete the Subtest. The Subtest is a criterion referenced test as opposed to a norm referenced test. To pass the Subtest, an examinee must attain a scaled score of 200. The Subtest is administered by the Office of Instructional Resources of the University of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "OIR") pursuant to a contract that OIR has with the Department. Dr. Sue Legg is the head of OIR. Pat Dovall is one of her assistants. Among OIR's responsibilities is the development, in cooperation with the Department, of a Test Administration Manual for the Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") to guide and assist test site administrators, test room supervisors and test room proctors in discharging their duties at the test administration sites. The Manual developed by OIR provides that the following procedures should be followed in the seating of examinees: 3. Procedures for Seating of Examinees Seat examinees in the same seat they used for the morning session. For retake candidates testing only in the afternoon, follow the procedures below. Place a test book receipt card on each desk where an examinee will sit. Be certain you and your assistants have unimpeded access to every examinee. Assign examinee to a specific row or column of chairs. DO NOT ALLOW EXAMINEES TO SELECT THEIR OWN SEATING POSITIONS. Arrange seating in a manner which will separate those who are obviously acquainted. Seat examinees so they cannot see their neighbors' responses or exchange information. Fill in appropriate chairs in each row or column in order to expedite distribution and collection of test materials. Place left handed examinees in a separate row or in the last seat or each row of right-handed examinees. If use of chairs with right-handed tablet arms cannot be avoided, seat left-handed examinees with vacant chairs to their left for use as writing surfaces. If an examinee objects to his seating assign- ment, the room supervisor should make every attempt to work out a satisfactory solution. If this is not possible, the center supervisor should discuss the problem with the examinee. 4. Seating Arrangements Level Seating Arrangements: Seat examinees directly behind one another, facing in the same direction. Maintain a three-foot separation. Inclined Seating Arrangements: Maintain a three-foot separation front and rear and side-to-side. With respect to the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," the Manual states the following: Report on the Irregularity Report name social security number test name time by reset watch Misconduct Defined as any of the following: creating a disturbance; giving or receiving help; using notes, books, calculators; removing test materials or notes from the testing room; attempting to take a test for someone else. ANY EXAMINEE MAY BE DISMISSED WHO IS ENGAGING IN ANY MISCONDUCT AS DEFINED ABOVE: Two witnesses (or more) must observe the misconduct. The test center supervisor or room supervisor must be one of the witnesses. A full written report, signed by all witnesses, must be sent to OIR immediately. Cheating Defined as an examinee giving or receiving assistance during a testing period. Dismiss examinee from the testing areas if either of the above occurs. Examinee may not return. Dismiss examinee who repeatedly, after warning, continues to work on a test after time has elapsed. Dismiss examinee who uses prohibited aids. Include the following on the Irregularity Report: Examinee's identification Type of "cheating" and details of activity Warnings given Time on the reset watch Test section Degree of certainty Name of persons confirming the information Information given to the examinee at the time of the incident Attach examinee's answer folder to the Irregularity Report and return to OIR. Suspected Cheating Record name of examinee suspected. Record name of persons from whom you suspect the examinee was copying. Warn the examinee that you suspect cheating. Move examinee to provide further separation. Disturbances Defined as behavior of examinee during testing that disturbs others; loud noises or other conditions that lead to complaints by the examinees. Individual disruptive behavior Warn examinee that dismissal will result if behavior continues. Report the incident on the Irregularity Report. Outside disturbance Stop test. Have examinees close test books with answer folders inserted. Note time on the reset watch. Adjust time when test is resumed to ensure a full test period. OIR is also responsible for the selection of test administration sites, subject to the approval of the Department. The North Campus of Broward Community College (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") was selected by OIR and approved by the Department as one of the test administration sites for the August 5, 1995, Subtest. For the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC, Dotlyn Lowe was the OIR- slected test site administrator, Greta Jackson was the test room supervisor, and Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan were the test room proctors. Each had served in similar capacities for prior examinations and, having previously reviewed the Manual, 2/ each was aware of its contents at the time of the administration of the August 5, 1995, Subtest. The August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC was administered in a classroom which had approximately 50 seats arranged in eight or nine rows. Each seat had a right-handed tablet arm for use as a writing surface. Petitioner was one of the approximately 35 examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC. He sat in the last occupied row of seats (in Seat Number 42). 3/ Seated immediately to his left, approximately two to two and half feet away (in Seat Number 41), was another examinee, George Sauers. On various occasions during the Subtest, Petitioner looked at Sauers' answer sheet to see Sauers' answers. 4/ Jackson, Johnson and Cadogan all witnessed Petitioner engage in such conduct. Jackson first noticed such conduct approximately an hour after the Subtest had begun. From her vantage point, she saw that Petitioner, instead of facing straight ahead toward the front of the room, was sitting with his body angled to the left in a position that enabled him to look at Sauers' answer sheet and see Sauers' answers without having to turn his head. 5/ Petitioner's left leg was crossed over his right leg and his left ankle was resting on his right knee. Petitioner had placed his question booklet on his left knee, but he was not looking at the booklet. Rather, his eyes were focused on Sauers' answer sheet. Jackson continued to watch Petitioner for another ten to twenty minutes from various parts of the classroom. During that time, she observed him repeatedly shift his eyes toward Sauers' answer sheet and then mark answers on his own answer sheet. Jackson then asked the two test room proctors, Johnson and Cadogan, to observe Petitioner. Johnson and Cadogan complied with Jackson's request. For the next fifteen to twenty minutes Johnson and Cadogan watched Petitioner and saw him engage in the same conduct that Jackson had observed. They then reported their observations to Jackson. Jackson thereupon consulted the Manual, specifically that portion dealing with the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," to determine what action she should take. Although she was certain that Petitioner had copied answers from Sauers' answer sheet, she was uncertain as to whether the provisions of the Manual relating to "cheating" or those relating to "suspected cheating" applied to such conduct. It was Jackson's understanding that an examinee who copied answers from another examinee's answer sheet was guilty of "cheating," as opposed to "suspected cheating," as those terms were used in the Manual, only if the "copying" examinee was knowingly helped by the examinee from whom he had copied, which did not appear to be the situation in Petitioner's case. Jackson, however, was not sure that this interpretation of the Manual was correct. She therefore dispatched Cadogan to seek guidance from Lowe, the test site administrator. Lowe sent her assistant, Jacqueline Edwards, to speak with Jackson. Edwards and Jackson determined that the provisions of the Manual relating to "suspected cheating" should be followed in dealing with Petitioner's conduct. Petitioner therefore was not removed from the test site. Rather, after being told that he was suspected of cheating, he was asked to change his seat (which he did without any argument) and allowed to remain in the classroom to finish the Subtest. In his new seat, Petitioner sat facing forward and had his test materials in front of him. He made no apparent effort to look at any of his new neighbors' answer sheets. Petitioner handed in his answer sheet before the expiration of the two and a half hours the examinees were given to finish the Subtest. Later that same day, following the administration of the Subtest, Jackson prepared and submitted a written irregularity report concerning Petitioner's "suspected cheating." 6/ Subsequently, on August 10, 1995, and again on August 28, 1995, Jackson sent memoranda to OIR accurately describing the incident. The memoranda were signed not only by Jackson, but also by Johnson and Cadogan, who did so to indicate that the information contained in the memoranda was accurate to the best of their knowledge. The August 28, 1995, memorandum was the most detailed of Jackson's three written statements 7/ concerning the incident. It read as follows: On Saturday, August 5, 1995, during the Professional Education Examination, I observed Mr. Lamothe looking at another examinee's (George Sauers) answer sheet. I observed Mr. Lamothe at his desk with one leg [a]cross the other and his test booklet approxi- mately 1 ft. away from him, resting on his crossed leg. However, Mr. Lamothe's pupils were in the extreme left corner of his eyes, looking onto Mr. Sauers' desk. Mr. Lamothe would then look up and once looked directly at me, pause as though he was thinking and then marked an answer on his answer sheet. I observed this incident, within an hour of the test, over a period of 15-20 minutes[.] I then asked the proctors (Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan) to also watch the examinee. After approximately 15-20 minutes, the proctors confirmed that they also observed Mr. Lamothe cheating. I sent Ms. Cadogan to the Test Center Supervisor, Dotlyn Lowe, for advice. Mr. Lamothe was not dismissed from test room, due to our interpretation of the Test Manual instructions on page 14, number 3 (that defines cheating as giving or receiving assistance, which was not the case). Therefore, we preceded as per the Test Manual instructions on page 15, number 4. I then informed Mr. Lamothe that he was observed/suspected of cheating and asked him to change his seat. Mr. Lamothe got his belongings together and moved to the front of the room. Mr. Lamothe finished his exam without further incident. Mr. Lamothe was sitting in the back of the room in Seat Number 42 and Mr. Sauers was sitting to Mr. Lamothe's left in Seat Number 41. Petitioner's scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest was 215. Sauers scored a 229. The mean scaled score of the 2478 examinees taking the August 5, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 215.32. Of these 2478 examinees, 94.2 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. 8/ 33. After reviewing Jackson's August 5, 1995, irregularity report and her August 10, 1995, and August 28, 1995, memoranda, 9/ Dr. Loewe consulted with his supervisor, Dr. Thomas Fisher. Dr. Loewe and Dr. Fisher determined, based on the information provided in these documents, that Petitioner's score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest should be invalidated. By letter dated September 18, 1995, Dr. Loewe informed Petitioner of this determination. The letter read as follows: This letter is in reference to your score on the August 5, 1995 Florida Teacher Certification Examination Professional Education test adminis- tration. At that administration test proctors witnessed you repeatedly looking at the answer document of another examinee. This constitutes cheating. As a result your score will not count and no score report will be mailed. 10/ If you dispute the material facts on which this decision is based, you may request a formal hearing by submitting a written request within 20 days of the date of this letter to: Dr. Thomas Fisher Administrator, Student Assessment Services Suite 701, Florida Education Center Florida Department of Educatio Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Failure to timely request a hearing constitutes waiver of administrative proceedings, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. If you wish to complete the teacher certification testing requirements you will need to register for and retake the Professional Education test at a scheduled administration. In response to Dr. Loewe's letter, Petitioner wrote the following letter, dated to September 28, 1995, to Dr. Fisher: This letter is in response to the memo that was sent to me on Septemb[er] 18, 1995 in regard to looking at the answer sheet of another examinee. I am appalled by these allegations. I spent several months studying for this exam and did not expect a response such as this (only a positive one). I am most definitely disputing these allegations. I request a formal hearing as soon as possible. Please send me further information on a time and place so I will be able to resolve this issue. A comparison of Petitioner's answers with those given by Sauers and the other examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest lends further support to the conclusion that Petitioner cheated on the examination, as alleged in Dr. Loewe's September 18, 1995, letter to Petitioner. Petitioner answered 37 of the 132 questions on the August 5, 1995, Subtest incorrectly. Sauers answered 23 of the 132 questions incorrectly. Twenty-one of the questions Petitioner answered incorrectly, Sauers also answered incorrectly. Petitioner and Sauers chose the identical incorrect response on 16 of the 21 questions they both answered incorrectly. This exceeds what would be expected based on random chance. On 11 of these 16 questions where Petitioner and Sauers selected the same incorrect answer, their answer was different than the answer most of the examinees selected. This is highly unusual. For example, on Question 71, 77 percent of the 2478 examinees chose "C," which was the correct answer. Petitioner and Sauers both selected "A," a choice made by only 5 percent of the 2478 examinees. Petitioner took the Subtest again, for the fifth time, on October 28, 1995. In addition to having taken the Subtest in August of 1995, he had also previously taken the Subtest in April of 1994, August of 1994, and April of 1995. On the April, 1994; August, 1994; and April, 1995 Subtests he had received failing scaled scores of 192, 199 and 194, respectively. On the October 28, 1995, Subtest, Petitioner received a failing scaled score of 198. The mean scaled score of the 1744 examinees taking the October 28, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 213.11. Of these 1744 examinees, 95.4 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. Petitioner was among the 81 examinees who took the Subtest on both August 5, 1995, and October 28, 1995. Of these 81 examinees, 67 scored higher on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such an increase is typical. Nine of the 81 examinees scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Of these nine examinees, four scored one point lower, one scored three points lower, two scored four points lower and one scored six points lower. Petitioner was the other examinee who scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest. His scaled score on the October 28, 1995, Subtest was 17 points lower than his scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such a significant decrease in scoring is consistent with his having cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Because Petitioner cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest by copying answers from Sauers' answer sheet, his score on that examination cannot be considered a reliable and accurate indicator of the extent of his mastery and knowledge of the general teaching methods and strategies covered on the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order invalidating the score that Petitioner attained on the August 5, 1995, Subtest because he cheated on the examination by copying answers from the answer sheet of another examinee. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of January, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 19th day of January, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent held Florida teacher's certificate number 581280, covering the area of art education. Her certificate was valid through June 30, 1998. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent was employed by the Broward County School Board (School Board) as an art teacher. This was her first year of teaching. In February of 1997, Respondent was reassigned from another school in the district to McNabb Elementary School (McNabb). Diane Lang is now, and has been for the past four years (including the 1996-97 school year), the Principal of McNabb. From the outset, Respondent had difficulty controlling students in her classroom at McNabb. Principal Lang attempted to help Respondent improve her classroom management skills. Her efforts, unfortunately, were to no avail. Principal Lang also received complaints concerning Respondent's use of profanity in the classroom. On February 25, 1999, Principal Lang reprimanded Respondent in writing for having engaged in such inappropriate conduct in front of her students. Late in the school day on April 21, 1997, when Respondent was in the art room teaching Ashley Russom's fifth- grade class, a student from another fifth-grade class, R. M., who was misbehaving in music class (being held across the hall), was sent by the music teacher to the art room for a "time out." When R. M. entered the art room, Respondent sarcastically announced to her students, "Look, it's my favorite student." Respondent then approached R. M., took him by the arm, and pulled him across the room to a chair. When he reached the chair, R. M. tripped and fell on the floor. He then picked himself up and, pursuant to Respondent's directions, sat on the chair. Respondent then returned to teaching the class. She was interrupted, however, when R. M. started making faces and distracting the students in the class. Respondent responded to R. M.'s disruptive conduct by again approaching him, taking him by the arm, and pulling him. This time she dragged him to the supply closet, which has a glass window facing the classroom. She left R. M. inside the supply closet and, as she exited, slammed the door. Upon slamming the door, Respondent yelled out, loudly enough for the 30 fifth-grade students in her class to hear, "Shit, I broke a nail." After Respondent resumed the lesson she was teaching, R. M. began pressing his face against the supply closet's glass window and making faces. He then picked up a knife that was in the supply closet, stood up on a counter that was next to the window, and put the point of the knife to his neck. A number of students in the class saw what R. M. was doing, and they shouted out to Respondent that R. M. was playing with a knife. Respondent then looked at R. M. through the supply closet window and told the class, "Just leave him alone; he's just trying to get attention." R. M. then began running on the counter in the supply closet with the knife still in his hand. Respondent was attempting to teach the class, but the students were not paying attention to her. They were watching R. M. As R. M. was running on the supply closet counter, he lost his balance and fell off the counter. R. M.'s demeanor changed after his fall. He sat quietly in the supply closet (without making faces or engaging in any other disruptive conduct) until he was let out by Respondent at the end of the period. As the students were leaving the art room, Respondent stated, loudly enough for some of the students to hear, "Why do I have to clean up after these damn kids?" Upon returning to Ms. Russom's classroom, her students told her about what had happened in Respondent's class. Ms. Russom, in turn, informed Principal Lang of what the students in her class had related to her. R. M. left school that day with a cut finger. The next school day, Principal Lang spoke to approximately ten of Ms. Russom's students concerning Respondent's conduct during the lesson she taught them on April 21, 1997, and she (Principal Lang) requested that the School Board's Special Investigative Unit conduct an investigation of the matter. At the conclusion of the 1996-97 school year, Respondent received an overall unsatisfactory performance evaluation and her annual contract was not renewed. As a result of the above-described conduct in which she engaged on April 21, 1997, while she had Ms. Russom's fifth- grade class in her classroom, Respondent's effectiveness as an educator has been reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and punishing her for committing these violations by revoking her license and denying her the right to teach for a period of six years, after which she may apply for a new certificate in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is an applicant for a Florida Educator's Certificate. On April 17, 2004, at the Kendall campus of Miami-Dade Community College (College), Petitioner sat for the general knowledge portion of the certification examination (Test), which included an essay question. In advance of the Test, Petitioner was informed in writing of, among other things, the following: In its continuing effort to assure fairness and equity in examination administration conditions, the Florida Department of Education is putting into written form those activities that have been, and continue to be, regarded as cheating by, or on behalf of, an examinee. The specific items represent cheating activities encountered throughout the history of the Department's assessment programs, but do not preclude the Department from appropriate action in cases of cheating that do not fall under a specific item. These guidelines are applicable to the Florida Teacher Certification Examinations program . . . . Section 1 defines those behaviors that constitute cheating. Section 2 lists materials, equipment and other aids that examinees are prohibited from using during the examination. . . . Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: * * * c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. * * * Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: . . . papers of any kind, including scratch paper; . . . * * * Annette Lorenzo, a College employee, was the "room supervisor" in the room in which Petitioner took the Test. Ms. Lorenzo was assisted by another College employee, Gladys Manrique, "who was "working as a proctor" in the room. When Petitioner arrived in the room the morning of the Test, she was checked in by Ms. Lorenzo, who assigned her a seat near the front of the room. Upon being told of her seat assignment, Petitioner "pointed to the last seat of the last row" and asked if she could sit there instead. Ms. Lorenzo "said, 'Okay, no problem,' and [Petitioner] went and sat down in that seat." After "checking everybody in," Ms. Lorenzo read "instructions for the exam" to the examinees (including "go[ing] through all the guidelines on what constitute[d] cheating, as well as what [was] and [was] not allowed in the room"), and, with Ms. Manrique's help, handed out the testing materials. Testing then began (at approximately 8:45 a.m.). Ms. Lorenzo and Ms. Manrique "walk[ed] around the room, up and down the aisles," to "mak[e] sure that nobody [was] cheating or using anything [prohibited]" while the test was being administered. As she was doing so, during the essay portion of the Test, Ms. Lorenzo noticed Petitioner periodically "looking into her [cupped] left hand [which was positioned on the desk in front of her, just above her answer booklet, and appeared to contain tissues] while she was writing" in the booklet with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo observed Petitioner's engaging in this suspicious conduct for "[a]t least ten minutes." During this time, Ms. Lorenzo was "staring at [Petitioner], watching her very closely." When she eventually made eye contact with Ms. Lorenzo, Petitioner moved her hands towards her face and "made a noise like she was blowing her noise." She then closed her left hand into a fist and continued writing with her right hand. Ms. Lorenzo advised Ms. Manrique that she suspected that "something [was] going on" with Petitioner, and she asked Ms. Manrique to "take a look." Ms. Manrique observed Petitioner for approximately five minutes, after which she reported back to Ms. Lorenzo that she "believe[d] there [was] something going on as well." Ms. Lorenzo then "walked to the back of the room and stood to the right of Petitioner." From her vantage point, Ms. Lorenzo noticed "sticking out the bottom of [Petitioner's left] hand," which was "still in a fist," not only tissues, but "paper with some writing on it." Upon making this observation, Ms. Lorenzo asked Petitioner to show her "everything [Petitioner] had in her hand."3 Petitioner's immediate response was to "[u]s[e] her right hand [to] grab[] the tissues out of her left hand," which she then quickly closed into a fist again. She gave the tissues she had transferred from her left to right hand to Ms. Lorenzo, explaining that she had "just tissues" and nothing else. Ms. Lorenzo, however, knew otherwise and demanded that Petitioner open her left hand. Petitioner complied, revealing the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had seen "sticking out" of the hand when it was clenched. The paper was the size of a "small note [pad] sheet." It was crumpled from being held tightly by Petitioner. On the paper was a complete essay that that Petitioner had written before entering the examination room. The essay was entitled, "A Place to Visit: San Antonio Park."4 Ms. Lorenzo took the paper, as well as Petitioner's testing materials, including Petitioner's answer booklet, from Petitioner. In her answer booklet, Petitioner had written an essay about San Antonio Park, substantial portions of which were identical, word for word, to what was on the paper that Ms. Lorenzo had confiscated from Petitioner's left hand. Petitioner had knowingly brought this paper into the examination room with the intent to use it as an aid in answering the essay question on the general knowledge portion of the Test,5 and she carried out this intent once the Test began.6 As Petitioner started to "g[e]t a little bit loud," Ms. Lorenzo escorted her from the room and took her to see Juan Meza, the College's testing director.7 On the way to Mr. Meza's office, Petitioner insisted that she had not cheated and "begg[ed] [Ms. Lorenzo] to let her go finish the exam." Ms. Lorenzo responded that Petitioner's "test [was] over for today." After Ms. Lorenzo had told Mr. Meza that she had "found [Petitioner] cheating," Mr. Meza spoke to Petitioner and told her that she could not "continue taking the test" because she had been caught cheating. Petitioner denied to Mr. Meza that she had been cheating. Mr. Meza, in turn, informed Petitioner that he would send an "irregularity report" to the Department and that the Department would "make [a] decision" as to whether she had been cheating and then "contact her to let her know what [was] going on." As promised, on or about April 19, 2004, Mr. Meza sent an "irregularity report" to the Department (along with the materials that Ms. Lorenzo had taken from Petitioner in the examination room). On April 26, 2004, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioner: This letter is in response to information I have received from staff at Miami Dade College, Kendall campus confirming that you failed to follow testing procedures during the administration of the General Knowledge Test on April 17, 2004. Along with the admission ticket you received for the examination, you received a letter that outlines the State's policy on cheating. Section 1 (c) and (f) and Section 2 state the following: "Section 1: Cheating Cheating is any unauthorized activity that impairs or alters the circumstances of the examination as a measure of the knowledge or skills it was designed to assess, including but not limited to the following: c. Bringing, or attempting to bring, into the examination room, materials, equipment, or information in any tangible form that could be used to provide unauthorized assistance in responding to examination questions or directions. * * * f. During the examination, using or attempting to use, prohibited aids, as identified in Section 2. Section 2: Prohibited Aids The following aids are prohibited during examination administration: Timex Data Link™ wrist watch; electronic pager; cellular telephone; pocket organizer; electronic writing pen or pen-input device; any electronic device with an alphabetic keyboard; dictionary or other books; ruler; papers of any kind, including scratch paper; slide rule; protractor; compass; laptop computer; calculator watch, or calculator except those calculators provided at the test center for the following tests: Mathematics 6-12, the math portion of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum (MGIC), Middle Grades Mathematics 5-9, Chemistry 6-12, Physics 6-12, and the math subtests of the General Knowledge Test." As a result of your failure to abide by this policy, the score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test under your name and Social Security number . . . for the April 17, 2004, test administration has been invalidated. By copy of this letter, I am also informing Professional Practices Services and the Bureau of Educator Certification of this decision. This decision means that you have yet to fulfill the State's requirements for a passing score on the Essay subtest of the General Knowledge Test. You are entitled to dispute this decision through legal administrative procedures. If you wish to do so, you must send a written request for an administrative hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The written request must be postmarked within twenty (20) calendar days of the date you receive this letter and submitted to the following address: . . . . If you fail to submit the written request within the specified time period, you will have waived the opportunity to contest the decision through administrative proceedings, and the score invalidation decision will be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Petitioner responded by sending a letter to the Department, which read (verbatim) as follows: I have received your letter about the problem I had the day of test. I'm so sorry about the day. In 20 years of being a teacher, I never had that kind of problem. That day I had a bad cold and when I finished my test, the only thing that I had to do was to check it, but I was coughing badly and I took a napkin that was inside my bag on the floor, but together with the napkin came out a paper. I took both in my hand. I put my hand up, because I knew that if the teacher saw me in this moment I got in trouble, but it was too late. The teacher came to me, asked for the paper and the napkin and without I could explain anything. She took to the supervisor and explained everything to him. He told he had to follow the rules, then he had to report the incident. So I think I should have an opportunity to do my tests again. The Commissioner subsequently notified Petitioner that her application for certification was being denied because she had "attempted to cheat" on the essay portion of Test "by referring to a complete essay she had in her possession when she entered the room." This denial of Petitioner's application for certification is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order sustaining the denial of Petitioner's application for certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 30th day of August, 2005.
