The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to make reasonable effort to protect a student's safety, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 646554 in the area of Mentally Handicapped. For the past six or seven years, Respondent has been employed as an ESE teacher at Windy Ridge. The record contains no evidence of prior discipline of Respondent's educator certificate, but the District suspended her for five days without pay for the three incidents that are described below. For the 2012-13 school year, Respondent and four paraprofessionals taught a class of seven ESE students. The paraprofessionals performed tasks assigned to them by Respondent. Absences on December 4, 2012, reduced the class to five ESE students, Respondent, and two of the four paraprofessionals regularly assigned to Respondent's classroom. The principal assigned a substitute for one of the two absent paraprofessionals, so four adults were supervising five students on that day. One of the five students present on December 4 was D.R., who was nine and one-half years old and suffered from a "significant cognitive disability." As documented by his Individual Educational Plan (IEP), which is dated November 6, 2012, D.R.'s mother was "very concerned" about the safety of her son, who was tube-fed, "non-verbal," and able to follow only "some simple one-step commands." The IEP warns that D.R. was in a "mouthing stage," meaning that he put "everything" in his mouth for sensory input. As described in his social/developmental history, which is dated November 1, 2012, D.R.'s health was "fragile." The three incidents at issue took place during approximately one hour at midday on December 4. The first incident took place at 11:10 a.m. Serena Perrino, a District behavior trainer, was sitting alone in Ms. Barnabei's classroom, which is next to Respondent's classroom. The two classrooms are joined by the two teachers' offices, so it is possible to walk between the classrooms without entering the hallway. On a break, Ms. Perrino had turned off the lights and was on the computer at the front of Ms. Barnabei's classroom. While facing the computer monitor, Ms. Perrino heard a noise behind her, turned around, and saw D.R., by himself, seated on the floor playing with a toy. Ms. Perrino knew that he belonged in Respondent's classroom. Without delay, Ms. Perrino walked D.R. toward his classroom, but, as they were passing through the teachers' offices, Ms. Perrino and D.R. encountered one of Respondent's paraprofessionals, who said that she was "just coming to get him, thanks." The second incident took place between 11:30 a.m. and noon. Bernadette Banagale, the substitute paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom on that day, was eating lunch in a small outside courtyard that is located at the end of the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. Ms. Banagale saw D.R., by himself, enter the courtyard from the doors at the end of the hallway. Ms. Banagale approached D.R. and, with some difficulty, walked him back to Respondent's classroom where she left him in the custody of the other two paraprofessionals, Susan Brown and Delta Porter, but not Respondent, who was not in the classroom when Ms. Banagale returned the child. The third incident took place shortly after noon. Cathy Zimmerman, a teacher, was sitting in a classroom eating lunch with another teacher. Looking out the window of the classroom, Ms. Zimmerman noticed D.R. in the adjoining breezeway, which divides the building from the school parking lot. Ms. Zimmerman did not know D.R., nor where he belonged, but she saw that he was unescorted. Approaching D.R. in the breezeway, Ms. Zimmerman guided him back through the doors leading to a hallway that, after a short distance, intersects the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. As she was walking the child into the building, Ms. Zimmerman directed the teacher with whom she had been having lunch to enter the nearest classroom to see if anyone could identify the child. As directed, the other teacher entered Ms. Barnabei's classroom, where she found Ms. Perrino, who again took custody of D.R. and immediately returned him to Respondent's classroom where Ms. Perrino found Respondent and one or more paraprofessionals. In an effort to prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R., Petitioner offered two pieces of evidence: during direct examination, the principal prescribed that a classroom teacher is required to know at all times the location of her students, and, during cross-examination, Respondent agreed with the metaphor supplied to her by Petitioner's counsel that a classroom teacher is the "captain of the ship." The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor constitute the entirety of Petitioner's explicit analysis of the reasonableness of Respondent's effort to protect D.R. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the first incident. The principal's testimony is inapt because Petitioner failed to prove that a paraprofessional did not always know D.R.'s location; that Respondent failed to protect D.R. when a paraprofessional knew his location, regardless of whether Respondent knew his location; and that D.R.'s safety was compromised at any time during the few seconds that he was in the adjoining classroom. Respondent's testimony is inapt because Petitioner did not prove that a paraprofessional failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety, which would be a pre-condition to attributing this failure to the captain of the ship, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the second incident. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape or at any time during his ensuing absence from the classroom and failed to prove that Respondent's absence from the classroom was unauthorized. As for the absence of Respondent from the classroom at the time of the escape in the second incident, the strongest evidence is Respondent's written statement to this effect. Other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement that she was not in the classroom at the time of the escape. Ms. Banagale's scheduled lunch was 11:30 a.m. to noon, and nothing in the record suggests that the substitute paraprofessional took her lunch at other than her scheduled time. The distance between the front door of Respondent's classroom and the exterior doors leading to the courtyard is the width of the single classroom that separates Respondent's classroom from these exterior doors, so it would not have taken D.R. long to travel from the front door of the classroom to the exterior doors leading to the courtyard. Respondent's scheduled lunch was 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., but Respondent testified that she was behind schedule when she took her lunch. She also testified that she returned to the classroom "a little after noon." Nothing in the record indicates how long Respondent took for lunch, but, if she took all of her allotted time, she likely left the classroom shortly after Ms. Banagale, leaving a very narrow window for D.R. to escape, if he were to do so after Ms. Banagale's departure, but before Respondent's departure--a fact that Petitioner has not established. The only evidence suggesting that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape comes from Respondent's testimony at the hearing to this effect. Notwithstanding the inculpatory nature of Respondent's testimony, it is impossible to credit it. Provided nearly two years after the incident, Respondent's testimony was, at times, confused and unclear, but her written statement is clear and straightforward. It would appear that, based on the findings below concerning the third incident, Respondent may have confused the second and third incidents. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the third incident. The third incident is more complicated than the first and second incidents because it is more difficult to determine exactly what Petitioner proved and the extent to which the material factual allegations extend to the proof of the third incident.2/ At minimum, Petitioner pleaded3/ and proved that D.R. escaped from the classroom, and Respondent was in the classroom at the time of the escape. Respondent gave a written statement admitting that she was present when D.R. left the classroom and that she was unaware of his departure "because my back was turned by me working with another student on the computer, [as D.R.] left out the rear door." At the hearing, Respondent testified confusingly, possibly suggesting that she was at lunch or in planning when D.R. escaped in connection with the third incident, but any such exculpatory testimony is discredited for the same reason that her inculpatory testimony regarding the second incident was rejected. As was true of the written statement in connection with the second incident, other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement in connection with the third incident. As noted in the discussion of the second incident, Respondent returned to the classroom "a little after noon." At this point, Respondent, Ms. Banagale, and Ms. Brown were in the classroom. Ms. Porter's scheduled lunch was from noon to 12:30 p.m., and nothing in the record suggests that she did not take her lunch as scheduled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, analysis of whether Respondent failed to meet a reasonableness standard may be facilitated by consideration of the burden of taking precautions sufficient to prevent an escape, the probability of an escape, and the magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety, if he escaped. The burden of taking additional precautions was not insubstantial. The classroom has three exits, and D.R. used each of them in connection with the three incidents. In the first incident, as noted above, D.R. used a side exit through the teachers' offices to get to the adjoining classroom of Ms. Barnabei. In the second incident, D.R. used the front door to get to the courtyard. In the third incident, D.R. used the rear door to access the adjoining breezeway, where Ms. Zimmerman found him no more than 75 feet from the rear door. Evidence suggests that locking the doors at each of these exits was forbidden, possibly due to fire regulations. Although three adults were supervising only five ESE students at the moment of D.R.'s escape in the third incident, the paraprofessional who normally taught D.R. one-on-one at the time of the escape was absent. It is not entirely clear how long Respondent was in the classroom before D.R. escaped, but Respondent was performing instructional duties at the moment of the escape, so additional attention by Respondent to security would have meant reduced instruction, at least of the child whom she was teaching one-on-one at the time of the escape; this adds to the burden of taking escape precautions.4/ The probability of D.R.'s escape was demonstrably very high, as evidenced by his three escapes in a single hour on December 4. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape is difficult to assess. D.R. was a medically fragile, highly vulnerable child. However, he suffered no injuries in any of the three escapes that are the subject of this case. The magnitude of the threat posed to D.R.'s safety from escaping was thus low. Considering that the burden of taking additional precautions was moderate, the probability of escape was high, and the magnitude of threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape was low, it is impossible to find that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety by preventing the escape in connection with the third incident. The analysis in the preceding paragraphs focuses on Respondent's failure at the moment of D.R.'s escape, not on the duration of his absence from the classroom and any ongoing failure to notice that the child was missing from the classroom. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner did not plead these failures as grounds for disciplining Respondent, but, in an abundance of caution, the following findings address these alternative grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety in connection with the third incident. There is no direct evidence of how long D.R. was out of the classroom in connection with the third incident. There is only one point in time established by direct evidence: Ms. Zimmerman first saw the child at 12:10 p.m. There is no direct evidence of when D.R. escaped from the classroom, nor could there have been such evidence from the known witnesses. Ms. Zimmerman's written statement notes that all of the physical education teachers, which may include her, were in the area of the breezeway from noon to 12:07 p.m., and they never saw D.R. Ms. Zimmerman's statement implies that someone would have seen D.R. if he had been anywhere in the breezeway by himself. Although Ms. Zimmerman could have estimated how long she had the child before turning him over to Ms. Perrino, no one asked her to do so.5/ And there is no other direct evidence of how long Ms. Zimmerman had the child. Based on the evidence cited in the preceding paragraph, D.R. escaped the classroom between 12:08 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. and returned to the classroom between 12:11 p.m. and 12:13 p.m. Limiting inferences to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the earliest that D.R. left the classroom was 12:09 p.m., and the latest that D.R. returned to the classroom was 12:11 p.m. This means that Petitioner has proved that D.R. was absent from the classroom for no more than two minutes: one minute by himself and one minute accompanied by Ms. Zimmerman. The burden of taking adequate precautions to detect the child's absence and return him to the safety of the classroom is lower than the burden of preventing the escape, which can occur in a few seconds, although it is difficult to assess what exactly would have been required of Respondent to conduct a search or, by notifying school administrators, to cause a search to be conducted. The burden of preventing an escape is much greater than the burden of noticing, within two minutes, that a child is missing from a five-student classroom. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety rises the longer that he is out of the classroom, especially unescorted. Presenting a closer case than the pleaded case involving only an escape, the claim that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort, when directed to the length of time that D.R. was out of the classroom, requires consideration of any effort that Respondent made during D.R.'s absence. The duration of D.R.'s absence is thus linked to whether Respondent noticed that D.R. was missing and, if so, what Respondent did upon discovering that he was gone. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, because inferences are limited to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing. There is no direct evidence that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing from the classroom. The record lacks admissions from Respondent and the two paraprofessionals in the classroom during the third incident that they were unaware of D.R.'s absence.6/ Both Ms. Zimmerman and Ms. Perrino testified that they did not see anyone in the vicinity of the classroom looking for D.R., and this testimony is credited, but supports no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom were not looking for the child, and does not support even an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom had failed to notice that D.R. was missing. Ms. Perrino testified that when she returned D.R. to the classroom, none of the adults present seemed to have realized that the child had been missing. This testimony is credited, but, lacks important detail, including on what this testimony is based and whether this observation applied to Respondent, so as to support no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults had not noticed that D.R. was missing. Thus, even if Petitioner has pleaded the duration of D.R.'s absence and a failure to notice the absence of the student as grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect his safety, Petitioner failed to prove these claims by clear and convincing evidence
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an annual contract teacher with the Dave County Public Schools and hold a Florida State teacher's certificate. Although she had worked as a teacher assistant in the past, her first year of employment as a full time teacher was the 1980-81 school year. Respondent was a teacher at Melrose Elementary School for the 1981-81 school year. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned to teach a Compensatory Education Class. These are small classes and, in Ms. Harper's case, never exceeded 11 students. She was, however, required to keep and retain student records to enable subsequent teachers to determine at what level the student was functioning. After Respondent was transferred from the Compensatory Education classroom, the assistant principal requested that she turn in the records for the class. Respondent stated that she had destroyed them. Respondent's next assignment at Melrose Elementary School was as the teacher of a fifth-sixth grade combination regular education class. The assistant principal officially observed Respondent in the classroom three times and unofficially observed her on additional occasions. She found that Respondent lacked effective instructional planning based on Respondent's failure to complete lesson plans. The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Respondent's union stated that lesson plans were an essential part of the teaching process and a proper subject for evaluation. On one occasion, the school was preparing for and audit. Auditors (administrators from other schools) check teacher's plan books, grade books and other teaching materials. The assistant principal contracted Respondent several times in advance of the audit in an attempt to prepare her for it. However, Respondent failed to develop the required lesson plans, so the assistant principal wrote out a week's plans for her. She asked Respondent to take the plans home over the weekend and copy them in her own handwriting. The following Monday at the beginning of the audit, Respondent had only filled out plans for Monday, Tuesday and Friday. There were no lesson plans to be delivered to the auditors regarding Wednesday or Thursday. Testimony of Respondent's supervisor established that she was unable to control the students in her classroom, primarily because she did not assign them anything to do. Furthermore, she sent her students out to play without supervision and left her classroom unattended on several occasions, even though she had previously been instructed by her supervisor not to do so. Respondent received an unacceptable performance rating in the area of "techniques of instruction." This rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not pretest her students and therefore had no knowledge of what the student did or did not know, what he needed to be taught or where to place him in the classroom. As a result, she attempted to teach students division when those students had not yet mastered prerequisite skills. She did not divide her class into ability groups so that she could teach groups of students at their levels of comprehension, and she did not maintain student profiles which would have shown her a particular student's abilities and deficiencies. Respondent either did not assign homework to her students or they did not return it because she had no records to indicate such assignment or files containing student homework. Her records of student grades were incomplete and only sporadically maintained. In the spring of 1982, two students from Respondent's class ran into the principal's office crying. The female student had welts on her chest and face; and the male student had similar injuries to his arms. These injuries were the result of an attack by Respondent. She had not been authorized to administer corporal punishment by her supervisor. Although there was another incident where Respondent chased a student with a ruler, this was the only situation in her teaching career where her loss of control had serious consequences. She appears to regret this incident. Ms. Harper was reassigned to South Hialeah Elementary School for the school year 1982-83. When she reported to South Hialeah Elementary School on September 20, 1982, she was given a lesson plan format, a teacher handbook and other pertinent teaching materials. Respondent received a two day orientation during which she was permitted to read the handbook, observe other teachers and talk with the grade level chairman. She was given instruction in writing lesson plans in the format used throughout the county and required by the UTD-School Board Contract. She was then assigned a regular fourth grade classroom. On her second day of teaching, the assistant principal noted an unacceptable noise level emanating from Respondent's classroom during the announcement period. When she walked into the room, she found Respondent preparing her lesson plans with the students out of control. The assistant principal advised Respondent that this was not the proper time to prepare lesson plans. The next day the situation was the same, and fights broke out between students. The assistant principal was concerned for the safety of these students because of the fights and because Ms. Harper's classroom was on the second floor and students were leaning out of the windows. On October 4, 1982, the assistant principal conducted a formal evaluation of Respondent's classroom teaching, and initially found Respondent preparing lesson plans and not instructing or supervising her students. During the reading lesson, Respondent did not give individual directions to the students, but merely told them all to open their books to a particular page. Since the students were not all working in the same book because they were functioning at different levels of achievement, this created confusion. Finally, the students who had the same book as Respondent were instructed to read, while other students did nothing. After a brief period of instruction, the class was told to go to the bathroom even though this was the middle of the reading lesson and not an appropriate time for such a break. The assistant principal noted that Respondent did not have a classroom schedule or rules. The classroom was in constant confusion and Respondent repeatedly screamed at the children in unsuccessful attempts to maintain order. The assistant principal determined that these problems had to be addressed immediately. Accordingly, in addition to a regular long-term prescription, she gave Respondent a list of short-term objectives to accomplish within the next two days. These objectives consisted of the development of lesson plans and a schedule, arranging a more effective floor plan in the classroom, making provisions for participation by all of the students and developing a set of classroom rules. The assistant principal advised Respondent that if she had any difficulty accomplishing these objectives, she should contact her immediately. The short-term objectives were never accomplished. Respondent did not develop classroom rules. Although the assistant principal and other teachers attempted to teach her to write lesson plans, this was relatively unsuccessful. The principal observed the classroom on October 6, and found that no improvements had been made. She also noted that Respondent had not complied with the outline for lesson plans required by the contract between the UTD and the School Board. Neither had she complied with school's requirements for pupil progression forms. The principal advised Respondent to attempt once again to work on the short-term prescription assigned on October 4, 1982. Subsequent observations and assistance did not result in any noticeable improvement. Respondent was unable to understand the need for organizing students in groups according to their abilities. Her students contained to wander aimlessly about the classroom. She was unable to document required student information even after repeated demonstrations. She did not test students and she failed to record their grades, except sporadically. Other teachers and parents complained about classroom conduct. Some parents requested that their children be moved out of Ms. Harper's class. Others complained to school officials about telephone calls from Ms. Harper at 2:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. Even the school custodian complained because Respondent's students repeatedly threw papers out of the windows. The principal arranged for Respondent to meet with the grade level chairman and the assistant principal to learn to develop lesson plans. She obtained information about classes at the Teacher Education Center of Florida International University and directed Ms. Harper to attend the classes. She subsequently determined that Respondent had not attended. Respondent told the principal that she could not attend because of car trouble. At the hearing, Respondent stated that not only did she have car trouble, but since she was a single parent, she lacked the time and money to attend the classes. She conceded, however, that the classes were free. In a further effort to assist her, Respondent was excused from her regular classroom duties to observe successful teachers. On one occasion she was found taking a coffee break instead. Again, there was not improvement apparent from this remedial measure. At the principal's request, the School Board's area director observed Respondent on November 11, 1982. Her testimony established that Respondent worked with only one group of three students in the classroom and the reading lesson being taught to those children was below their appropriate level. She also observed that there were no records indicating the progress of Respondent's students and that the students were talking continually. Due to her numerous difficulties in teaching and the lack of progress in correcting the deficiencies, the principal, assistant principal and area director concluded that Respondent lacked the requisite competence to continue in her contract position. A recommendation of dismissal to the School Board followed on January 6, 1983, Respondent was suspended. After her suspension, Respondent secured employment as a teacher of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) at the Tri-City Community Association. Testimony of its director established that Respondent is an effective teacher of ESOL and that she trains other teachers to perform this function.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Florida teaching certificate and providing the right of reapplication after one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 20th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen Leesfield, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp (Sapp), was nonrenewed for his annual teaching contract for constitutionally permissible reasons.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed by the Escambia County School Board for the 1984-85 school year in the compensatory education program at Bellview Middle School and later that school year he took the place of an eighth grade math teacher who was out on maternity leave. Sapp holds a Florida Teaching Certificate in elementary education and is not certified to teach in middle school. He has a bachelors degree. Sapp was asked by the School Board to take the courses necessary to become certified in middle school math, but did not do so because he was working at another job at the time. Petitioner was hired on annual contract by the principal of Bellview Middle School to teach seventh grade math during the 1985-86 school year and to teach sixth grade for the 1986-87 school year. For the most part, Sapp received excellent performance evaluations from the Bellview principal. In September, 1986, a mother of a Bellview Middle School student complained to the principal regarding what she believed to be unacceptable contact between Sapp and her son. The principal told Sapp to stay away from the student, but the parent's complaints continued. The student had been in Sapp's seventh grade math class the prior school year. On November 7, 1986, Sapp was arrested for lewd and lascivious assault on that student. As a result of these charges the Superintendent of the Escambia County School District recommended to the School Board that Sapp be suspended without pay. The School Board voted to disapprove the Superintendent's recommendation. Instead, Sapp was reassigned to administrative duties at the Hall Center. In the fall of 1986, Sapp was also notified by the Department of Education, Professional Practices Services (PPS), that an investigation of the allegations involved in the criminal charge had been instituted. On April 1, 1987, Sapp received the standard memo from the School Board, signed by the Bellview principal, indicating that his annual contract was going to expire at the end of the 1986-87 school year. The memo also indicated that the school district would move as rapidly as possible on the reappointment of the annual contract teachers recommended to the Superintendent for reappointment for the 1987-88 school year, but "personnel assignments resulting from the closing of the Beggs Center and the redistricting of all middle school boundaries greatly obscures the timeline for such reappointments." During the summer of 1987, Sapp talked to Dr. Roger Mott, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services of the school district, and others in his office regarding appointment to an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year. Sapp claims he was told by Mott that he would not be rehired until after his criminal trial. Mott denies telling this to Sapp. Because Sapp's testimony was very confused and contradictory regarding these alleged statements by Mott, Sapp's version is given little weight. Instead, it is found that Mott did not tell Sapp that he would be rehired after the criminal trial. During the discussions between Sapp and Mott in the summer of 1987, Mott did tell Sapp that he was free to interview with any principals in the district for open annual contract positions, however those principals who inquired would be told that there was a Professional Practices Services investigation. Sapp expressed interest only in employment at Bellview. During 1987 the middle schools of Escambia County were redistricted. As a result of redistricting, Bellview Middle School anticipated losing approximately 300 students and 10 teaching positions for the 1987-88 school year. After the jury found him not guilty on August 12, 1987, Sapp again inquired regarding employment. According to Charles McCurley, principal of Bellview Middle School, there were no positions available at Bellview. By letter dated August 21, 1987, Sapp was advised that the Professional Practices Services was investigating two complaints. The first related to the charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The second complaint was that Sapp had received his teaching certificate by fraudulent means because he failed to disclose two criminal convictions on his applications. Mott became aware of the PPS investigation and he discovered that Sapp had apparently falsified the applications for his teaching certificate and the applications for employment with the Escambia County School District. Mott then informed Sapp that the chances of reemployment were not good and that he could not be considered for employment until the PPS investigation was complete. Mott also testified that Sapp was not reemployed because of the information that formed the basis of the second PPS investigation. While this is not the place to determine whether or not Sapp falsified these applications, it is necessary to determine what facts the Respondent acted on in not renewing Sapp's annual contract. Sapp's applications to both the school district and the state showed that he answered "no" when asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony or first degree misdemeanor or other criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. Sapp has, in fact, been convicted of at least two such violations which were not disclosed. Sapp approached Robert Husbands, Executive Director of the Escambia Education Association, for assistance in getting employment. Husbands talked to Mott. Mott informed him that Sapp could not be rehired until the PPS investigation was resolved. Husbands found that there were seven teaching positions in the whole county which were vacant at the beginning of the 1987-88 school year. Two of those positions were located some distance from Pensacola. Only one of those positions was known to have been filled by an annual contract teacher. There were 37 annual contract teachers in the school district who were not renewed for the 1987-88 school year. Eight others who were not renewed at the beginning of the school year were rehired during the year. Because of redistricting, Bellview had only one opening for an annual contract teacher after it placed its continuing contract teachers. That one opening was for reading and was filled by a reading teacher with a masters degree. Sapp was not qualified for that position. After the 1987-88 school year had begun, Bellview experienced increased enrollment and a resulting increase in teaching positions. Those positions were filled by teachers who were teaching in their field of certification and who were at least as qualified as Sapp. It was very important that Bellview have teachers working in their area of certification because the school was to be audited for accreditation in the 1987-88 school year. Sapp's former position at Bellview was filled by a continuing contract teacher who had previously taught seventh grade and who was certified to teach in both middle and elementary school. The teacher who took over Sapp's class in the 1986-87 school year was not rehired. During the first week of the 1987-88 school year, Sapp sought employment at Bellview and the principal correctly told him there were no jobs. Later, in October, 1987, a position opened up at Bellview and a continuing contract teacher with a masters degree in reading and 18 years of experience was transferred in at her request. Sapp believes he was not renewed as retaliation for the School Board's rejection of the Superintendent's recommendation for suspension on January 27, 1987. This allegation is based only on Sapp's personal feeling and no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. Sapp also believes he was not renewed because of the arrest itself. Again, no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. By letter of September 18, 1987, the School District, through counsel, advised Sapp's attorney that Sapp would not be considered for reemployment until the PPS investigation was concluded and the District was advised of the results. The PPS has not filed any complaint against Sapp based on either of its investigations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp, be DENIED relief from the nonrenewal of his annual contract and that his request for relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 8th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5059 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Finding's of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(10); 3(12); 4(14); 5(2); 6(2); 8(3); 9(3); 11(4); 12(5); 13(8); 15(6); 16(7); 18(23); 20(20); 21(24); 22(26); 23(26); and 25(27). Proposed findings of fact 7, 17, 28 and 29 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Propose findings of fact 14, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Escambia County Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(9); 2(1 and 10); 3(11); 4(25); 5(25); 6(13); 7(14 and 16); 8(15 and 22); 9(18); 10(22 and 23); 11(6); 12(19); 13(29); 14(30 and 31); 15(32); 16(33); 18(19); 19(27); 20(28); 21(33); 22(34); and 23(35). Proposed finding of fact 17 is rejected as being unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 24 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: G. James Roark, III, Esquire 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mike Holloway Superintendent of School Board Escambia County 215 West Garden Street Post Office Box 1470 Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to terminate the employment of a non-instructional employee whose performance is alleged to have been unsatisfactory.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Ms. Dickerson was employed in the District as an education paraprofessional. For the 2000-01 school year, she was assigned to Meadow Park Elementary School (the "School"). That year, Ms. Dickerson worked under the supervision and direction of a special education teacher named Kimberly Vargas-Vila, whose half-dozen or so pupils, ranging in age from three to seven years, were children with autism. Ms. Dickerson was one of two paraprofessionals placed in Ms. Vargas-Vila’s classroom for the 2000-01 school year. In the discharge of her duties, Ms. Dickerson was required to feed students, help them in the toilet, assist the teacher in the classroom, assist children in play, watch them on the playground, make copies, and run errands for the teacher. Not long after the school year started, Ms. Vargas-Vila noticed that Ms. Dickerson resisted attempts by the other paraprofessional, who was a so-called "one-on-one" aide assigned to a specific student, to help Ms. Dickerson. Ms. Dickerson wanted to perform certain duties herself and often refused offers of assistance. Ms. Dickerson's unwillingness to share the work load was not initially disruptive but increasingly became so. In October 2000, another problem developed: Ms. Dickerson began to disobey Ms. Vargas-Vila's directions concerning the management of students' behavior. The teacher spoke with Ms. Dickerson about this issue, but Ms. Dickerson refused to discuss the matter with her. Instead, Ms. Dickerson sent a letter to the Board in which she unjustly accused Ms. Vargas-Vila of harassment. Unable on her own to resolve the problems she was having with Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila sought the advice of the School's Principal, Elizabeth Cardozo. After conferring, they decided that the three of them (the principal, the teacher, and the paraprofessional) should meet together. Accordingly, a meeting was held between Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila, and Ms. Cardozo on October 18, 2000. While the primary topic of discussion was Ms. Dickerson's allegation that Ms. Vargas-Vila had harassed her (which was groundless), other matters were discussed too, with the participants agreeing to reconvene if problems recurred. Despite this meeting on October 18, 2000, Ms. Vargas- Vila continued to have difficulties with Ms. Dickerson. Therefore, a few weeks later, on November 7, 2000, Ms. Vargas- Vila wrote a memorandum to Ms. Cardozo that related her concerns about Ms. Dickerson's ongoing failure to follow instructions relating to the behavior management techniques that she (the teacher) wanted to use with a particular student. In this memorandum, Ms. Vargas-Vila explained that she frequently had told Ms. Dickerson to ignore certain inappropriate behaviors in which the student in question was engaging, but Ms. Dickerson refused to comply. Rather than ignore the student, as directed, Ms. Dickerson would continue to talk and interact with the student. Ms. Vargas-Vila also had instructed that the student’s chair be placed slightly apart from the other students, but Ms. Dickerson, disobeying, had moved the student’s chair back towards the others in the group. Ms. Dickerson's defiance was causing friction in the classroom. When Ms. Vargas-Vila witnessed these insubordinate acts, she immediately discussed them with Ms. Dickerson, who either did not comment or expressed her opinion that the teacher's orders were inappropriate. Ms. Vargas-Vila's memorandum of November 7, 2000, reported as well that Ms. Dickerson continued to object when the teacher asked the other paraprofessional to handle duties that Ms. Dickerson felt were "her" tasks. As a result of Ms. Vargas-Vila's memorandum, a meeting was held on November 17, 2000, between Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila, Ms. Cardozo, and a District official named John Stevens. The meeting was difficult because Ms. Dickerson became loud and angry, accusing the attendees, among other things, of plotting to violate her Constitutional rights. She also made the weird charge that Ms. Vargas-Vila had employed a "fake cough" to aggravate her in the classroom. Notwithstanding these impediments to productive discourse, Ms. Vargas-Vila reviewed "improvement strategies" with Ms. Dickerson, who said that she would follow this advice. Afterwards, Ms. Dickerson was provided a written summary of the November 17, 2000, conference, which specified the areas in which improvement was needed and the recommended improvement strategies. For a while after the November 17, 2000, meeting, Ms. Dickerson's performance improved. But before the month was out, Ms. Dickerson had resumed refusing to allow the other paraprofessional to perform certain duties, and she had begun once again to disregard the behavior management techniques that Ms. Vargas-Vila prescribed. These problems continued into the next calendar year. Throughout January 2001, Ms. Dickerson's performance- related problems persisted. Ms. Vargas-Vila talked specifically with Ms. Dickerson about the need for her to follow directions and allow other people to help out in the classroom, but Ms. Dickerson did not change her unsatisfactory behavior. As a result, another meeting with Ms. Cardozo was scheduled, for January 25, 2001. The January 25, 2001, meeting was attended by Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Vargas-Vila, and Ms. Dickerson. During the meeting, Ms. Dickerson was told that she had failed to follow the improvement strategies that had been recommended——and which she had agreed to implement——during the conference on November 17, 2000. Ms. Dickerson was notified that if she continued to disobey the teacher's directions, she would be subject to disciplinary action. Finally, more improvement strategies were discussed, and these were reduced to writing, as part of the principal's conference notes, a copy of which was provided to Ms. Dickerson on January 30, 2001. As of the January 25, 2001, meeting, Ms. Cardozo was convinced that Ms. Dickerson’s job performance was unsatisfactory and that her actions were interfering with the instructional process in the classroom. Consequently, Ms. Cardozo sought guidance from Diane Curcio-Greaves, a Professional Standards Specialist at the District's headquarters, in regard to the preparation of a performance evaluation of Ms. Dickerson. The conditions of Ms. Dickerson's employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement called the Agreement Between the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida and the Association of Education Secretaries and Office Professionals, dated July 1, 1997 - June 30, 2000 (the "Union Contract"). The Union Contract forbade the recommendation of an employee for termination based upon an unsatisfactory evaluation unless that employee had been given at least 30 days to improve his or her performance. In view of this contractual provision, Ms. Curcio- Greaves and Ms. Cardozo decided that Ms. Dickerson would be afforded 30 days from the date she received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation within which to correct the identified deficiencies. On February 2, 2001, based on Ms. Vargas-Vila's input as well as her own observations, Ms. Cardozo recorded her assessment of Ms. Dickerson's performance on a Noninstructional Evaluation form used by the District. Ms. Cardozo rated Ms. Dickerson unsatisfactory under the categories of self motivation, adaptability to change, interpersonal effectiveness, and assignments (specifically, under the last heading, for failing to follow directions easily and effectively). Ms. Cardozo assigned Ms. Dickerson an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, and Assistant Principal Diane Bell met with Ms. Dickerson on February 5, 2001, to discuss the unsatisfactory evaluation and to initiate a 30- day assistance plan. At this meeting, improvement strategies for each area in which her performance had been deemed unsatisfactory were recommended to Ms. Dickerson. These improvement strategies, together with a statement of the reasons why Ms. Dickerson's job performance was considered unsatisfactory, were set forth in a memorandum of assistance dated February 2, 2001, which Ms. Cardozo had prepared earlier. The evaluation and its attachments, including the memorandum of assistance, were presented to Ms. Dickerson on February 5, 2001. Ms. Dickerson acknowledged receipt of these documents, noting her disagreement with the contents and vowing to appeal "THIS FALSE PLOT!" In accordance with District policy and the Union Contract, Ms. Cardozo was responsible for monitoring Ms. Dickerson's progress during the 30-day assistance period and periodically meeting with Ms. Dickerson to review her performance and provide feedback. Ms. Cardozo scheduled several review conferences with Ms. Dickerson, to occur on Friday, February 16; Monday, February 26; and Monday, March 12, 2001. These dates were provided to Ms. Dickerson in a memorandum dated February 8, 2001, receipt of which was acknowledged by Ms. Dickerson that same day. The first review conference was held on February 20, 2001.1 Present were the same persons as on February 5: Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Bell, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, and Ms. Dickerson. Ms. Cardozo discussed each previously-identified area of deficiency with Ms. Dickerson and told Ms. Dickerson what was expected of her to correct these deficiencies, which persisted. Ms. Dickerson was not receptive to advice and indeed refused to acknowledge that her performance was unsatisfactory. Based upon Ms. Dickerson’s comments and the fact that she had not been following the implementation strategies described in the February 2, 2001, memorandum of assistance, Ms. Cardozo was of the opinion that as of February 20, 2001, Ms. Dickerson’s job performance had not improved. On February 22, 2001, Ms. Cardozo wrote a memorandum detailing the discussion that had taken place during the February 20, 2001, meeting. This memorandum specified the areas of Ms. Dickerson’s job performance that continued to be deficient, and spelled out the steps that Ms. Dickerson needed to take in order to improve. Ms. Cardozo gave Ms. Dickerson a copy of her memorandum on February 22, 2001, receipt of which was acknowledged by Ms. Dickerson. On February 23, 2001, Ms. Cardozo formally observed Ms. Dickerson in Ms. Vargas-Vila's classroom for one hour. She noticed that Ms. Dickerson continued to be performing unsatisfactorily in the area of interpersonal effectiveness. A few days later, on February 26, 2001, a second review meeting was held with Ms. Dickerson. In attendance were Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Ms. Bell, Jeanne Burdsall (a Manager in the District's Office of Professional Standards), and Ms. Dickerson. At this meeting, Ms. Dickerson informed the group that she had spoken with the "Assistant Superintendent" concerning her belief that people were trying to take her job away and give her a bad evaluation. Ms. Dickerson was reminded that on February 5, 2001, she had been advised about the grievance procedures available to union members. Ms. Dickerson was again informed of her right to contact a union representative if she wanted to file a grievance regarding her evaluation. It is evident that by the time of the February 26, 2001, meeting, Ms. Dickerson was not implementing previously- recommended improvement strategies and had no intention of doing so. She continued to deny having performance problems and stubbornly resisted attempts to help her improve. Ms. Dickerson repeated the now-familiar but utterly unsubstantiated accusation that Ms. Vargas-Vila and others were harassing her and plotting to take away her job. Ms. Dickerson's comments had become alarmingly irrational and paranoid. On March 6, 2001, Ms. Dickerson received a copy of Ms. Cardozo's detailed memorandum describing the February 26 meeting. Ms. Cardozo continued to hold the opinion that Ms. Dickerson had not improved her job performance to a satisfactory level. The next day, Ms. Dickerson refused to change a child's diaper at the direct request of Ms. Vargas-Vila, claiming that it was not her job and complaining that the teacher's directive constituted harassment. Ms. Vargas-Vila immediately brought this incident to Ms. Cardozo's attention. Within hours, the principal had notified Ms. Dickerson in writing that she wanted to meet with her the following day, March 8, 2001, in order to review the notes that Ms. Cardozo had made concerning her February 23, 2001, classroom evaluation of Ms. Dickerson. Later that afternoon, Ms. Dickerson appeared in Ms. Cardozo's office, ranting loudly that she was being harassed and asking why they needed to have a meeting. Ms. Cardozo advised Ms. Dickerson that the reason for the meeting was to go over the results of the February 23, 2001, observation. Ms. Dickerson alleged (again) that she could no longer do her job due to the supposed harassment. Ms. Cardozo asked Ms. Dickerson if she was refusing to meet with her, and Ms. Dickerson told her she was not. At that point, Ms. Cardozo told Ms. Dickerson that she would arrange to discuss the observation of February 23, 2001, at the upcoming assistance review meeting, scheduled for March 12, 2001. Thereupon, Ms. Dickerson left Ms. Cardozo’s office, only to return minutes later to tell Ms. Cardozo that she was sick and leaving for the day. In light of Ms. Dickerson's outburst and bizarre behavior, Ms. Cardozo began to worry that she or her staff might be in danger. Ms. Cardozo’s last meeting with Ms. Dickerson was on March 12, 2001. Ms. Cardozo gave Ms. Dickerson a copy of her memorandum of the observation that she had conducted on February 23, 2001. In the memorandum, Ms. Cardozo specifically commented on Ms. Dickerson's lack of interpersonal effectiveness. Ms. Cardozo also handed Ms. Dickerson a Noninstructional Evaluation form that she had completed on March 12, 2001, on which Ms. Dickerson was graded unsatisfactory in the areas of self motivation, adaptability to change, interpersonal effectiveness, and assignments——the same areas in which Ms. Dickerson's performance previously had been considered deficient. Overall, the evaluation was unsatisfactory. Because she had failed to correct the identified performance deficiencies within 30 days, Ms. Dickerson was informed via a letter from the Chief Personnel Officer, which she received on March 12, 2001, that effective March 13, 2001, she was being reassigned to her home with pay, pending the Board's next meeting on March 28, 2001, at which time action would be taken to dismiss her. By memorandum dated March 12, 2001, Ms. Cardozo notified the Director of Professional Standards that Ms. Dickerson had been given an unsatisfactory evaluation after the end of a 30-day assistance period. Based upon the unsatisfactory evaluation, Ms. Cardozo requested a District review to determine further action, up to and including termination of Ms. Dickerson's employment. In due course, pursuant to District policy, a competency hearing was convened before a committee of District employees, to review the evaluation process and Ms. Cardozo's recommendation that Ms. Dickerson's employment be terminated. The committee determined that all of the procedures for terminating a non-instructional employee for unsatisfactory performance had been followed, and it voted to uphold Ms. Cardozo's recommendation. The superintendent accepted the committee's recommendation, executing a petition on March 15, 2001, which urged the Board to suspend Ms. Dickerson without pay effective March 29, 2001, and to terminate her employment effective 15 days after the Board's decision or following an administrative hearing if timely requested. Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that the Board suspended Ms. Dickerson without pay effective March 29, 2001, as recommended. Ultimate Factual Determination Ms. Dickerson's job performance was unsatisfactory, and she failed to correct the identified deficiencies within the 30-day period prescribed under the Union Contract, despite the provision of ample assistance to improve her performance.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Taylor County, Florida. A Master Teacher Contract between Petitioner and the Taylor Education Association governs relations between Petitioner and its teachers. Respondent is an educator, with 35 years of teaching experience. She is certified by the Florida Department of Education to teach students enrolled in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. Respondent has at least 20 years of experience in teaching ESE students. During the 2009-2010 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent as an annual contract teacher at Perry Primary School. Pursuant to the contract, Petitioner hired Respondent to work from August 17, 2009, to June 9, 2010. Respondent’s class during the 2009-2010 school year was made up of students with varying exceptionalities. The exceptionalities included handicaps such as specific learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, or emotional or physical handicaps. The class consisted of students in kindergarten, first, and second grades. At the outset of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was assigned eight students, two of which had a full-time personal assistant. Just prior to the Christmas break, Respondent was assigned another ESE student with a full-time personal assistant. The primary responsibility of the personal assistants was to help their designated students function successfully and safely in the classroom. Additionally, the personal assistants were supposed to support the classroom teacher as needed. In addition to the personal assistants, Respondent’s class utilized the services of Behavioral Management Center (BMC). The BMC consultants visited Respondent’s classroom frequently to develop and monitor the implementation of behavior modification plans for certain students. The school psychologist also visited the classroom frequently to assist the teacher and students. Petitioner uses many computer software programs for the testing and monitoring of student progress. The computer programs are necessary in order to comply with Florida Department of Education requirements. The computer programs are used throughout the state and require data entry and transmission at several points in the academic year. Gradequick is a program that enables teachers to electronically enter student grades. Among other tasks, the program calculates grade point averages. The grades and averages are then entered in the Edline program that is accessible by both parents and students. Administrators can access these programs to ascertain the level of progress by a particular class or student. For the 2009-2010 school year, the initial Gradequick and Edline training was conducted the first week of September 2009. Respondent attended the training session. Tienet is a computer program used to assist with the drafting of individual education plans (IEPs) for ESE students. It is a web-based program that also is used to monitor a student’s progress in accomplishing the goals and objectives on the student's IEP. Tienet generates a parent report that goes out with report cards. All students in Respondent’s 2009-2010 class were learning in accordance with an IEP. Aimsweb is a computer program that monitors compliance with state and federal guidelines regarding student achievement and progress in reading and math. Aimsweb requires that all students be tested at the beginning, middle and end of the school year. The teacher uses the initial test or “probe” to determine the child's baseline. Other probes are performed on a weekly basis throughout the school year. Petitioner can use the data to determine if a child is academically at risk and, if so, to implement interventions to address any deficiency. FAIR is a state-mandated assessment test in reading that also is given three times a year. FAIR provides for an exemption for students who are severely limited academically. However, Petitioner always completes the initial FAIR test for all students, regardless of academic ability. After assessing the results of the first probe, Petitioner can then determine whether students will be exempted from further testing. In the 2009-2010 school term, Jack Palaio was an ESE resource teacher and the Perry Primary School technology coordinator. As technology coordinator, Mr. Palaio had to make sure the teachers’ and students’ computers were up and running. He also trained staff and teachers on the use of the computer software programs referenced above. Mr. Palaio’s responsibilities included monitoring data collection and data transmission from the classrooms. On or about September 2, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent provide him with a list of her students. Mr. Palaio needed the names to made sure the students were placed in the proper Gradequick files. As of September 14, 2009, Respondent still had not provided Mr. Palaio with the list of names. In addition to the training sessions taught when school began, Mr. Palaio offered to assist Respondent on several occasions starting at the beginning of the year. At times, Respondent sought help from Mr. Palaio in person or by email. By mid-year, it should not have taken Respondent but a few minutes per student to enter weekly data on Gradequick. Aimsweb should have required no more than five minutes per student on a weekly basis. The FAIR data requires very little time because the teacher enters it while testing the students. Tienet data entry takes even less time because it requires formulation of IEPs only once a year and review and maintenance quarterly. Pam Padgett was the assistant principal at Perry Primary School. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent to provide Ms. Padgett with a copy of Respondent’s class schedule. The schedule was necessary to show the times that Respondent intended to teach specific subject areas. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett also informed Respondent that her students would need to take the initial FAIR and Aimsweb probes in order to establish baselines. Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that other staff members would do this testing for Respondent. In September 2009, two of Respondent’s students were exempt from taking the initial FAIR reading probe because of their disabilities. The two students were supposed to be tested using an alternative assessment known as the Brigance. Petitioner’s staff decided to test the two students on the FAIR material, using a paper test, in addition to the Brigance test. The Brigance test, in booklet form, was supposed to be given three times a year. Teachers used a different color to score students’ tests each time it was administered. On September 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested Respondent to see him about testing her students using the Brigance. Mr. Palio also offered to help Respondent set up Edline for her class. Alise Thompson is the Intervention Resource Compliance Specialist at Perry Primary School. In the 2009-2010 school year, she was responsible for ensuring that teachers properly drafted IEPs using Tienet and for scheduling IEP meetings. On September 21, 2009, Ms. Thompson instructed Respondent to prepare the IEP (goals and objectives) for a student. She reminded Respondent that the IEP meeting for the student was scheduled for September 25, 2009. On September 22, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her class was set up in Gradequick so that she could start adding weekly grades. Mr. Palaio asked Respondent to see him for information about entering the grades in Gradequick. On September 29, 2009, Mr. Palaio again reminded Respondent that she needed to enter her grades in Gradequick so that she could send home midterm progress reports the next day. On September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her kindergarten student needed to have grades entered in the computer on a weekly basis for reading now and for reading, spelling, and math beginning in January. He also reminded Respondent that her first and second grade students needed grades for reading, math, and spelling. As of September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio had prepared the midterm reports for Respondent’s first and second grade students. He also offered to do the same for the kindergarten student if Respondent would send him the necessary information. Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she had been provided with additional computer training in Edline and needed to post her grades in Gradequick on a weekly basis. The September 30, 2009, email to Respondent told her to put her Brigance booklets back in the students’ cumulative folders in the school office. This was necessary in order to ensure their safekeeping. On October 26, 2009, Perry Primary School was preparing to send report cards home for the first nine weeks. Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent in this regard if she encountered any difficulty. On October 28, 2009, Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent with entering grades in Gradequick because she was late in doing so. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected some of her inconsistencies, but that he was more concerned with her failure to enter all required grades for her students. Specifically, Mr. Palaio noted that Respondent had not entered grades for some children for over two weeks. George Clayton was the principal of Perry Primary School for the 2009-2010 school year. Around the end of October or the beginning of November 2009, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent a reminder that she was two weeks behind in posting her grades to Edline and entering grades to Gradequick. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to "take care of this matter." Anne Sesock, as the Response to Invention (RTI) Specialist for the 2009-2010 school term, was responsible for monitoring teachers’ data for FAIR and Aimsweb testing at Perry Primary School. Over time, Ms. Sesock became aware that Respondent was behind on her FAIR and Aimsweb testing and/or data entry. On October 29, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers that Thursday was the day they should monitor progress of their students in math using Aimsweb. Ms. Sesock had already entered the students’ names into the computer. Ms. Sesock then gave a brief description of how to perform the task. On October 30, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded certain teachers, including Respondent, that they needed to enter their reading/literacy scores into Aimsweb. This was necessary for the school to prepare for a data meeting. On October 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she needed to see about her Tienet progress reports that had to go home with student report cards. Mr. Palaio sent Respondent another message on October 30, 2009. In that message, Mr. Palaio stated that one of Respondent’s students still needed early literacy scores entered in Aimsweb. On November 2, 2009, Perry Primary School sent report cards home. Ms. Padgett asked Respondent to a meeting regarding Respondent’s failure to send Tienet parent reports out with report cards. On November 2009, Mr. Palaio responded to Respondent’s request for help in checking her students’ grades and parent reports. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected the grades in Gradequick so that she would now be entering grades for the second nine weeks. He stated that she had some grades missing and needed to be consistent in entering the grades. He also reminded Respondent that she needed to make corrections in the Tienet parent reports relating to student objectives, which should have been sent home with the last report cards. On November 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock directed Respondent to bring certain Aimsweb reading benchmark assessment sheets to a training session that afternoon. Ms. Sesock offered to enter them in the computer. In November 2009, Mr. Clayton became concerned with the lack of structure and student behavior problems in Respondent’s classroom. He subsequently initiated a plan to provide Respondent with help in this regard. On November 23, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that a substitute would be available the next day so that Respondent could meet with school staff and the BMC consultant. The purpose of meeting was to develop a schedule and activities for Respondent’s class. On or about November 24, 2009, Respondent, the BMC consultant, and other school staff members met to develop a Tuesday/Thursday schedule for Respondent’s class. After the meeting, Respondent was supposed to develop a similar schedule for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever completed this task. The Tuesday/Thursday schedule provides for whole group time beginning at 8:00 a.m. As the day progresses, the personal assistants were assigned to work one-on-one with a student, in small groups, or large groups, while Respondent worked one-on- one or two-on-one with specific students. To supplement the Tuesday/Thursday schedule, Respondent and the BMC consultant developed a Tuesday/Thursday Lesson Plan of 1:1 or 2:1 Instructions. The lesson plan names specific students and the skills/materials to be used with that student. On December 1, 2009, BMC staff visited Respondent’s classroom to observe implementation of the new schedule. They advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent stayed on the schedule for part of the day, but failed to follow it for the rest of the day. On December 1, 2009, Ms. Padgett provided Respondent with a copy of a walk-through monitoring form to be used when she and other administrative staff visited Respondent's class. Ms. Padgett reminded Respondent to post her class schedule for all support staff during the times that Respondent and the personal assistants were working one-on-one with students and in group time. On December 2, 2009, Ms. Padgett shared BMC’s concerns with Mr. Clayton. On December 3, 2009, Ms. Padgett visited Respondent’s classroom to observe a reading lesson under the new Tuesday/Thursday schedule. Ms. Padgett noted that Respondent was behind schedule but appeared to be implementing the new plan. Ms. Padgett subsequently provided Respondent with written observations, setting forth strengths, missed opportunities, and something to work on. In December 2009, Ms. Padgett became aware that Respondent had not done the required mid-year FAIR testing or had done the testing but failed to enter the data in the computer. On December 3, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent had not started a single FAIR test. The next day, Ms. Padgett directed Respondent to begin FAIR-testing her students and to get help from Mr. Palaio and/or Ms. Sesock, if needed. On December 4, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent and another teacher that they needed to complete the regress/recoupment forms for their students before Christmas break. The forms are used three times a year to record test data on the same specific skill. The data is used to determine whether a student requires an extended school year (summer school) as an accommodation. On December 7, 2009, Mr. Clayton responded to Ms. Padgett that he was disappointed in Respondent’s failure to adhere to the new schedule. Mr. Clayton stated that he would be visiting Respondent’s class that day. From December 8, 2009, through December 11, 2009, Respondent was absent from school because she had pneumonia. During that week, Respondent came to school one time for a meeting at Mr. Clayton’s request. The meeting related to a student that would soon be entering Respondent’s class. There is no record of Respondent receiving emails from school while she was home sick. Accordingly, the following emails dated December 8 through 11 may not have been read by Respondent until she returned to school on December 14, 2009. On December 8, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He advised her that certain students were missing a spelling score in the FAIR testing. On December 9, 2009, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that an IEP meeting was scheduled on December 11, 2009, for "O." Ms. Thompson had started the IEP but reminded Respondent to add the goals. The December 11, 2009, IEP meeting obviously had to be cancelled because Respondent was home sick and had not completed drafting the IEP. On December 10, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded her that she needed to enter FAIR scores for spelling. On December 11, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded Respondent to complete the regress/recoup form with all students that week. On December 16, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that the initial regress/recoup testing had been done by another staff member the week before and that he had entered the scores. Mr. Palaio provided Respondent with a spreadsheet showing the results of the first probe that needed to be repeated the first day after Christmas break and then again two weeks later. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio reviewed the policy at Perry Primary School regarding the need to check email three or four times a day. Teachers were supposed to read email before school, after reading, during lunch, and after school. Respondent was advised that teachers are held responsible for knowing the information contained in school emails, including requests for specific data. On December 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers to complete their Aimsweb math and reading probes. Ms. Sesock wanted all teachers to enter the data that day or the next day so that the data would be available in January for intervention assistance team meetings. In an email dated January 3, 2010, Ms. Sesock wanted to know about missing scores in Respondent’s Aimsweb progress monitoring. Ms. Sesock could not run charts on the students until all scores were entered in the computer. January 4, 2010, was a teacher-planning day. During the day, Mr. Palaio sent Ms. Sesock a list of teachers, including Respondent, who had missing Aimsweb data as of December 18, 2009. Ms. Sesock responded with an email inquiring whether they could give Respondent an explicit instruction booklet on how to input scores so Respondent would learn to do it herself and quit bothering them. On January 4, 2010, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent and other teachers that they needed to complete the second set of regress/recoup progress monitoring. He advised them to use the spreadsheet started before Christmas and to repeat the process on January 19, 2010. On January 5, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him about Aimsweb and Brigance. He wanted to assist her with the Brigance books and Aimsweb probes. On January 5, 2010, Respondent injured her shoulder and knee when she fell after tripping over a student at school. She was prescribed pain medication (Vicodin and Celebrex) and required to wear a leg brace. Respondent claims that the medications made her sleepy and made it difficult for her to focus. However, she did not complain to anyone at Perry Primary School that the medications were interfering with her performance. On January 8, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent and other teachers about completing IEPs. Specifically, she reminded them that they needed to enter the accommodations for each child on an individual basis. On January 11, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him that day. Mr. Palaio wanted to discuss Respondent’s scores for Brigance, Aimsweb, and Tienet. By January 2010, Mr. Clayton was aware that Respondent and the three personal assistants in her classroom were not working as a team. The personal assistants resented having to work with small or large groups of students while Respondent worked with students on a one-on-one or two-on-one basis. Mr. Clayton had a meeting with Respondent and her personal assistants on January 13, 2010. He gave the personal assistants a copy of their job descriptions. He reminded them that Respondent was the class leader and that they were her support staff. On January 13, 2010, Mr. Clayton told the personal assistants that they had to stay with their assigned students when BMC staff came to model implementation or observe implementation of a behavior plan. He did not want the assistants to think they could take a break every time BMC staff visited the classroom. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton discussed the Tuesday/Thursday schedule developed by BMC staff. He requested that Respondent develop a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule, using the same format, and give it to him. Mr. Clayton was concerned that there was not a consistent daily routine in Respondent’s classroom. Mr. Clayton also discussed Respondent’s lesson plans during the January 13, 2010, meeting. Mr. Clayton wanted Respondent to give him a copy of her lesson plans for the upcoming week every Friday before she left school. The first Friday that Respondent should have given Mr. Clayton her lesson plans was on Friday, January 15, 2010. As a general rule, teachers kept their lesson plans, two weeks in advance, in spiral notebooks provided by the school at the beginning of the school year. Teachers were supposed to keep the lesson plan books on their desks at all times. Mr. Clayton reviewed the lesson plans on a regular basis. Mr. Clayton made the special request on January 13, 2010, about Respondent’s lesson plans because he never saw her plan book on her desk. When he asked about the plan book, Respondent always said it was in her car or at home. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton instructed Respondent to provide each personal assistant with a copy of the IEPs and behavior plans for each student in the class. Mr. Clayton wanted the personal assistants to be familiar with all of the students’ IEPs and behavior plans so that they would know what to do in the absence of Respondent or a colleague. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent never complied with Mr. Clayton’s directive in this regard. Finally, Mr. Clayton told Respondent on January 13, 2010, that her class would be moved that weekend from a portable classroom to a classroom in the main building. The purpose of the move was to place the class closer to the school clinic to accommodate a student with medical issues. Mr. Clayton created written minutes of the January 13, 2010, meeting to share with Respondent and the personal assistants. Following the meeting on January 13, 2010, the assistants became more cooperative. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Sesock told Respondent how important it was for her to have up-to-date progress monitoring data for Aimsweb reading and math. At that time, Respondent had not entered the required weekly progress monitoring data, seven scores in math and five scores in reading. The second benchmark assessment for Aimsweb was due to be entered between January 11, 2010, and January 15, 2010. Ms. Sesock wanted to make sure that Respondent had all the materials she needed to perform the assessment. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that "O's" IEP meeting was scheduled for Friday, January 15, 2010. Ms. Thompson requested that Respondent update his academic and behavior goals before the meeting. The next day, Ms. Thompson directed Respondent to update "O's" curriculum and behavior goals. On January 15, 2010, the IEP meeting had to be rescheduled because Respondent did not have “O’s” IEP properly drafted. Ms. Thompson sent an email to Respondent, stating that Respondent needed to separate goals and objectives on the IEP by subject area. For example, Respondent needed one goal and two objectives for reading, math, and behavior. After receiving a copy of Ms. Thompson’s January 15, 2010, email to Respondent, Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete “O’s” IEP goals by January 19, 2010. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to put the IEP in his mailbox before she left school on the 19th. On January 15, 2010, Respondent did not provide Mr. Clayton with the lesson plans for the upcoming week. Instead, she left school early for a doctor’s appointment and took the rest of the day off. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that he had reviewed her Aimsweb data and that it was not updated. He told her to update the reading and math data before she left school on January 21, 2010. During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent had completed two IEPs before attempting the IEP for “O.” However, Respondent failed to complete “O’s” IEP and place it in Mr. Clayton's mailbox on January 19, 2010, as requested. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an internet link for Tienet. Apparently, Respondent had lost the website address. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Clayton issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for “insubordination” for failing to complete “O’s” IEP on time. Respondent received the January 21, 2010, letter of reprimand, concerning the IEP, in her mailbox at school. Respondent’s failure to timely complete the IEP was gross insubordination. Respondent had been given more than enough time and assistance to properly draft the IEP. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent’s pain medication was responsible for her inability to complete the IEP. On January 21, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that corrections still needed to be made to “O’s” IEP. Respondent was told that each area of the IEP needed a present- level statement followed by at least one goal and two objectives. Later that day, Mr. Palaio gave Respondent additional suggestions to make the IEP meet Petitioner’s ESE standards. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. The message reminded Respondent that most of her Aimsweb scores had not been entered. On the morning of January 22, 2010, Mr. Clayton shared some of his concerns with Respondent in an email. First, he discussed Respondent’s need to conduct Aimsweb progress monitoring probes in reading and math. Second, Mr. Clayton was worried about Respondent’s failure to enter grades in Gradequick, advising her to see Mr. Palaio by the end of the day to resolve this matter. Third, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she needed to be using the school-wide behavior modification program. Fourth, Mr. Clayton noted some errors in “O’s” IEP. Fifth, Mr. Clayton told Respondent not to forget to do the ESE regress/recoup form. Finally, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she was supposed to provide him with a copy of her lesson plans before leaving school that afternoon. Mr. Clayton wanted to make sure that Respondent received his January 22, 2010, email. He asked his assistant to call Respondent that afternoon. Realizing that Respondent was not in her classroom, Mr. Clayton requested the assistant to call Respondent’s cell phone and her husband’s cell phone. Because Mr. Clayton could not reach Respondent, he sent her another email at 3:55 p.m., telling her to contact Mr. Palaio if she and he were still on campus. Respondent left school on Friday, January 22, 2010, without giving Mr. Clayton her lesson plans. At 5:51 p.m. on January 22, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He reminded her to do her quarterly Tienet progress reports that were due to go home with report cards on January 27, 2010. On Monday morning, January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent an email. The message stated that administration wanted to meet with her at 2:30 in Mr. Clayton’s office. Respondent was advised that she could bring union representation to the meeting. During the meeting on January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton discussed Respondent’s failure to provide him with her lesson plans as directed. Mr. Clayton also told Respondent that her failure to complete a task by a given date constituted insubordination and served as grounds for termination. During the January 25, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton told Respondent that she had a chance to resign. Mr. Clayton stated that if she did not resign, he would contact the Superintendant and recommend her termination. Respondent could not make a decision to resign without talking to someone. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to let him know her decision by Wednesday, January 27, 2010. Respondent did not do so. At some point in time, Mr. Clayton placed a letter of reprimand, dated January 25, 2010, in Respondent's mailbox for failing to provide him a copy of her lesson plans on January 15, 2010, and on January 22, 2010. Mr. Clayton noted in the letter that he still had not received Respondent's lesson plans. Following the meeting, on January 25, 2010, Respondent got materials ready for her students for the remainder of the week. Respondent did not return to work until Monday, February 1, 2010. On January 26, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent by email that “O’s” goals and objectives were looking better. However, Ms. Thompson noted certain corrections needed to be made. Ms. Thompson placed a draft copy of the IEP, with notations, in Respondent’s mailbox. When Respondent returned to school on February 1, 2010, she gave Mr. Clayton a very detailed copy of her lesson plans for February 1, 2010, through February 12, 2010. The lesson plans were in a narrative form and not in a lesson plan book form that contains plans for a week at a glance. Even though the plans were not drafted according to Perry Primary School policy and were not the plans expected, Mr. Clayton provided Respondent with a lengthy critique of the lesson plans. On February 1, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that she needed to complete the regress/recoup spreadsheet. He also told her that she still needed to fix “O’s” IEP by February 3, 2010, and before the IEP meeting on February 10, 2010. Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete the January Brigance testing before she left work on February 5, 2010. On February 1, 2010, Ms. Padgett sent Respondent an email regarding the reading programs in Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Padgett told Respondent that Ms. Padgett and the BMC staff had made certain decisions about the reading program while Respondent was absent from school. On February 2, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that "O's" IEP was better. However, Ms. Thompson noted that Respondent needed to work on the reading goal and two objectives. On February 3, 2010, Ms. Thompson stated that she had met with Mr. Palaio and that he had offered some suggestions for “O’s” IEP. Ms. Thompson's message included a copy of a draft IEP prepared by Mr. Palaio. In a letter dated February 3, 2010, Mr. Clayton recommended that the Superintendant terminate Respondent’s employment. The letter references Respondent’s failure to provide him with lesson plans and the associated reprimand. The letter does not refer to Respondent’s reprimand for not completing the IEP goals. Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter also included the following deficiencies: (a) Respondent never provided the personal assistants with the student behavior plans as instructed on January 13, 2010; (b) Respondent did not have her Brigance testing up to date; and (c) Respondent’s Aimsweb data was not up to date. In a letter dated February 5, 2010, Paul Dyal, Superintendant of Taylor County School District, advised Respondent that her employment was suspended with pay as of February 8, 2010. Mr. Dyal stated that the action was based on Respondent’s insubordination as outlined in Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter. Mr. Dyal’s letter was hand-delivered to Respondent on February 5, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That The Taylor County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela M. Ball, Esquire Post Office Box 734 Perry, Florida 32348 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Dyal, Superintendent Taylor County School District Alton J. Wentworth Administrative Office Complex 318 North Clark Street Perry, Florida 32347 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues here are as presented through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent falsified applications related to her certification as a teacher in the State of Florida and her employment as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida School System. In particular it is alleged that Respondent falsely answered questions pertaining to her arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor offense in Jacksonville, Florida. For these acts, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that she has obtained her teaching certificate by fraudulent means and been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school system. Moreover, it is alleged that further fraud was committed related to Rule 6B- 1.06(5)(a)(g) and (h) Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to fraudulent statements or disclosures.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1981, Shirley Lambert made application to be certified as a teacher in the fields of health education and physical education. This certification request was made with a State of Florida, Department of Education Teacher Certification section. A copy of the application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. As part of the application, question V asks, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Lambert responded in the negative. Lambert also signed the application form below that portion of the application related to notarization which states "I understand that Florida Statutes provide revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate is obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 FS). I certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct." As a result of this application, Respondent was issued a teacher's certificate from the State of Florida, Department of Education in the field of physical education. The date of the issuance was June 25, 1982, for a period ending June 30, 1983. A copy of this certificate is found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. In fact, as was known to the Respondent at the time of making the application for certificate, she had been arrested and charged with petit theft for an offense that occurred on April 11, 1978, the taking of clothing less than $100 in value. The basis of the charge was Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent pled guilty to this offense and was given a ten day jail sentence which was suspended and probation imposed for a period of six months. The particulars of this disposition may be found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 3, which contained records of court related to the offense. On August 10, 1982, Respondent made application for employment with the Duval County School Board, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This application had a similar question related to prior criminal offenses. The application stated, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Again, the question was answered in the negative although Respondent was aware of the aforementioned criminal violation at the time she answered this questionnaire. The application was signed by Respondent and at the place of signature, Lambert was exposed to the language at the signature line which states "I certify that all information on this application is true and accurate and recognize that it is subject to verification and that my employment and/or continuance thereof is contingent upon its accuracy." Not being mindful of her prior criminal involvement the Duval County School System hired Respondent as a substitute teacher on September 13, 1982. Her criminal record was later disclosed to the administrators within that system and her employment was terminated effective October 12, 1982. Had the administration known of the prior criminal involvement, they would not have hired Lambert in view of the fact that they could be more selective and not choose a person with a prior criminal involvement, given the high number of applicants for jobs within their system. Dalton Epting, Director of Certified personnel of Duval County Public Schools, felt that a prior conviction of a misdemeanor offense of petit larceny would be in violation of standards required of teachers in Duval County. Likewise, the offense of petit larceny would be sufficient grounds to deny certification when requested of the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent testified that in the course of the final hearing and indicated in discussing both applications which are at issue that she read those applications too fast and made a mistake in answering the questions related to her prior criminal involvement. She felt in effect that she had not read the applications carefully. Moreover, in giving her explanation at final hearing, even though she recognized her prior criminal involvement in the way of arrest and the plea of guilty to petit theft, she stated that she did not feel the questions in the applications related to misdemeanors. She was of the opinion that the questions pertained to more serious crimes. Given the plain language of the questions in the application for certification with the State of Florida and the application for a position with the Duval County School Board and the precautionary statements related to accuracy and possible penalties for inaccuracy, Respondent's explanations are not plausible. Respondent's comments do not constitute a reasonable excuse for having falsified her applications for certification and employment.
The Issue Whether Jessie M. Mitchell should be discharged from her employment as a teacher in the Duval County public school system for professional incompetency as set forth in Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, 1941 Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenure Act")?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was licensed as a public school teacher by the State of Florida. Her license was current and in full force and effect. Ms. Mitchell was licensed to teach in early childhood education. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was employed as a tenured teacher by the Board. Ms. Mitchell received a Bachelor of Science degree from Edward Waters in 1962 and a Masters degree from Florida A & A University in 1965. During the 1985-1986 school year, Ms. Mitchell was assigned as a teacher at S. P. Livingston Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Livingston") in Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Strauss was the principal at Livingston during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Strauss had been the principal charged with evaluating Ms. Mitchell during the 1982-1983, 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 school years. Mr. Strauss had given Ms. Mitchell an overall satisfactory rating for these years. Ms. Mitchell received satisfactory ratings for the 1980 through 1985 school years. She did not receive an unsatisfactory rating until the 1985-1986 school year. During the 1985-1986 school year Mr. Strauss observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on four or five occasions. On February 14, 1986, Mr. Strauss extended the end of Ms. Mitchell's evaluation period for the 1985-1986 school year from March 15, 1986, the usual evaluation date, to May 2, 1986. In-service cadre were also requested to assist Ms. Mitchell improve her performance. John Williams was the primary in-service cadre member who provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Williams observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on April 18, 1986 and May 22, 1986. After each observation, Mr. Williams met with Ms. Mitchell and discussed his observations. Written suggestions for improvement were also presented to Ms. Mitchell by Mr. Williams. Ms. Mitchell was also given the opportunity to observe other teachers. In addition to Mr. Williams, Cheryl Schang, Marilyn Russell and Carolyn Love provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams and Ms. Russell conducted a help session on planning and curriculum for Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell did not cooperate fully in the efforts of Mr. Williams and other in-service cadre members to assist her. She missed several meetings which had been scheduled with cadre members. Ms. Love observed Ms. Williams for approximately five hours. Based upon her observations, Ms. Love pointed out deficiencies and discussed ways of correcting those deficiencies with Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams provided Ms. Mitchell with language experience reading materials, teacher improvement packets and behavior management material in an effort to improve her performance as a teacher. Mr. Williams and Mr. Strauss developed a Professional Development Plan for Ms. Mitchell. The Professional Development Plan provided objectives and suggestions designed to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her performance as a teacher. The Professional Development Plan was provided to Ms. Mitchell in April, 1986. It was not probable, nor was it anticipated, however, that Ms. Mitchell would complete the goals set out in the Professional Development Plan before the 1985-1986 school year ended. It was anticipated that the Professional Development Plan would be followed by Ms. Mitchell during the 1986- 1987 school year. The Professional Development Plan developed for Ms. Mitchell was adequate to assist Ms. Mitchell to improve her teaching performance. Ms. Mitchell did not carry out the objectives and suggestions contained in the Professional Development Plan during the 1985-1986 school year or the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given a written evaluation for the 1985-1986 school year by Mr. Strauss on May 2, 1986. Ms. Mitchell was evaluated unsatisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was notified by certified mail on May 16, 1986, that her performance as a teacher during the 1985-1986 school year had not been satisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was informed that she had the right to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell elected to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. She was assigned to teach kindergarten at Richard L. Brown Sixth Grade Center (hereinafter referred to as "R. L. Brown") for the 1986-1987 school year. William Permenter was the principal at R. L. Brown. In August, 1986, Mr. Permenter and Ms. Mitchell had a pre-planning conference. During this conference, the Professional Development Plan developed by Mr. Strauss and Mr. Williams for Ms. Mitchell was discussed with her and modified. Mr. Permenter made numerous suggestions to Ms. Mitchell to assist her in improving her teaching performance during the 1986-1987 school year. During the 1986-1987 school year Mr. Permenter observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on at least nine occasions. Conferences were held with Ms. Mitchell following these observations. Mr. Permenter also set out in writing suggestions intended to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her teaching performance. Mr. Permenter's written suggestions to Ms. Mitchell contained clear and detailed concerns with Ms. Mitchell's performance. In October, 1986, Mr. Permenter gave Ms. Mitchell an interim evaluation of unsatisfactory. On January 30, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was informed by Mr. Permenter that she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year unless she demonstrated an acceptable level of teaching performance by March 15, 1987. In March, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was given an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year by Mr. Permenter. During the 1986-1987 school year the primary in-service cadre member who assisted Ms. Mitchell was James Constande. Mr. Constande observed Ms. Mitchell on at least six occasions, conducted conferences with Ms. Mitchell, made suggestions to her and provided her with written materials designed to assist her in improving her teaching performance. Five of Mr. Constande's six observations were scheduled with the permission of Ms. Mitchell. Jayne Owens, another in-service cadre member, also assisted Ms. Mitchell. No observations were conducted by in-service cadre from September 27, 1986, through November 25, 1986 and from November 26, 1986, through January 21, 1987, because of Ms. Mitchell's reluctance to agree to such observations. On March 23, 1987, Ms. Mitchell told Mr. Constande that she did not want to continue with classroom observations. Mr. Constande contacted Ms. Mitchell in April and May of 1987, at least twice each month. Ms. Mitchell refused to allow any classroom observations. In-service cadre members encouraged Ms. Mitchell to contact them if she needed any additional assistance. Ms. Mitchell did so only on a few occasions. Jayne Owens, an in-service cadre member during the 1986-1987 school year, conducted class while Ms. Mitchell observed. During the 1986-1987 school year Ms. Mitchell believed that Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre members were not trying to help her. This attitude was reinforced by advice Ms. Mitchell received from counsel for the Duval County Teachers' Union. Ms. Mitchell's attitude about Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre deteriorated after she received an unsatisfactory rating for the 1986-1987 school year. She refused any further assistance from the in-service cadre. The unsatisfactory ratings which Ms. Mitchell received for the 1985- 1986 and 1986-1987 school years were based upon her deficiencies in the general areas of classroom management and teaching effectiveness. Ms. Mitchell's classroom management deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to maintain order in the classroom and school corridors; (b) failure to maintain an attractive, organized classroom (Ms. Mitchell did improve her performance in this area, however); (c) failure to keep students on- task by engaging in conversation unrelated to the subject of her class; (d) failure to maintain effective behavior management techniques such as the use positive reinforcement to avoid negative behavior; (e) failure to stop students who interrupted by calling out; (f) failure to explain the standard of behavior she expected; (g) failure to control the noise level; (h) failure to monitor rules and to timely issue desists orders; (i) failure to identify and discipline students actually causing disruptions; (j) failure to stop children from chewing on pencils, which may be a health hazard; and (k) failure to insure that usable school materials were picked up off the floor to avoid their being sweep up and thrown away. Ms. Mitchell's teaching deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to explain the purpose of lessons at the beginning of a class and to give a review at the end of the class to reinforce what had been taught; (b) failure to provide an explanation when moving from one subject to the next; (c) failure to use correct grammar; (d) failure to give praise; (e) failure to organize the classroom effectively into learning areas; (f) failure to correctly mark report cards; (g) failure to manage time properly, resulting in a loss of momentum; (h) failure to have materials and teaching aides ready to start class; (i) failure to select subject matter of a film suitable for her students; (j) failure to keep lesson plans in accordance with district guidelines; (k) failure to assign or prepare sufficient tasks for students; (1) failure to organize instructions; (m) failure to stop unison responses; (n) failure to be familiar with subject of a film; (o) failure to avoid providing too much information to students; and (p) failure to accurately present subject matter. Ms. Mitchell's deficiencies were observed over two school years by at least six observers on several occasions. Ms. Mitchell was unable to produce current lesson plans in May, 1986. Ms. Mitchell did not adequately plan. Therefore, she was unable to provide an effective learning environment and she was unable to reduce discipline problems. Ms. Mitchell failed to have a series of groups of students and a series of activities for each group throughout a school day. Ms. Mitchell failed to properly maintain cumulative folders during the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given clear and detailed statements of her deficiencies throughout the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years. The Superintendent of Duval County Public Schools brought charges against Ms. Mitchell seeking to discharge her for professional incompetency by certified letter dated May 19, 1987. The charges were based upon Ms. Mitchell's teaching performance during the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years, the two years for which Ms. Mitchell received unsatisfactory evaluations. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a hearing in conformance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a speedy and public hearing, informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her, confronted by accusing witnesses, given the opportunity to subpoena witnesses and papers and allowed to secure assistance of counsel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Mitchell be dismissed as a tenured teacher within the Duval County public school system. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4581 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3. 3 46. 4 38 5 39 and 41. 6 40-41. 7 6 and 9. 8 17. 9 Hereby accepted. 10-11 20. 12 11. 13 18. 14-15 21. 16-17 Irrelevant. 18 11. 19 17. 20 13. 21 12. 22 14. 23 13. 24 42. Hereby accepted. See 40. 27 16. 28 43. 29 42. 30 34. 31 15. 32 See 39. 33 19. 34 22. 35 23. 36 24-25. 37 18, 38 Hereby accepted. 39 26. 40 28. 41-42 Irrelevant. 43 45. 44 27. 45 Hereby accepted. 46-47 30. 48-49 Hereby accepted. 50 31. 51 30. 52 32. 53 35. 54 Hereby accepted. 55 32 and 37. 56 33. 57 See 40. 58-61 Hereby accepted. 62 44. 63 36. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant. 66 32 and 37. 67 36. 68-69 Hereby accepted. 70 45. 71 Cumulative. 72 47. 73 48. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 3. 3 46. 4 5. 5 6. 6 10. 7-8 21. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11-13 7. 14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15-16 Hereby accepted. 17 17. 18 24. 19 23. Irrelevant. See 25. 22 27. 23 29. 24-29 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 30 8. 31-43 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 44 Hereby accepted. 45 4. 46 8. 47 Hereby accepted. 48 36. 49-52 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Dolores R. Gahan Assistant Counsel City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth Vickers, Esquire Suite 1 437 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herb A. Sang, Superintendent School Board of Duval County 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Pinellas County (School Board) should accept the Petitioner's recision of her resignation from her position as a high school teacher and reinstate her to her former position on the ground that her resignation was given under legal duress.
Findings Of Fact During the 1992/1993 school year, the Petitioner, Deborah Green, taught high school in the GOALS (drop-out prevention) program at Dixie Hollins High School. In January, 1993, she applied for a year of medical leave of absence due to stress and stress-related symptoms. The School Board approved leave starting January 27, through June 11, 1993. Shortly after going on medical leave, the Petitioner was notified that a student had made serious accusations against her. One of the accusations was that the Petitioner freely told the student details about her romantic relationship with a Michael Miller, who was married and the principal of another Pinellas County high school. She contacted the student to find out what the accusations were and met with her principal and the student and his mother to discuss the accusation. At the meeting, the student recanted. The Petitioner left for Dallas, Texas, shortly after her leave began, but she continued to receive telephone messages locally through her friend and former housemate. Not long after the Petitioner left for Dallas, the student who had accused her, and then recanted, again accused the Respondent, alleging that he had recanted because the Petitioner had asked him to lie for her. When this happened, the principal of Dixie Hollins referred the matter to Stephen Crosby, Director of Personnel Services for the Pinellas County Schools. Crosby called the Petitioner at her local telephone number and left a message. When the Petitioner returned the call from Dallas, Crosby explained that he was investigating serious charges that had been made against her and that, as always in such circumstances, it was important for him to meet with her about them as soon as possible. The Petitioner declined, stating that she was not emotionally, mentally, or physically prepared at the time to handle the situation or the stress of the situation. She insisted that her meeting with Crosby be postponed. As an accommodation to the Petitioner, Crosby agreed to postpone the meeting, and the two agreed to meet on March 1, 1993. On or about February 28, 1993, on a return trip to Pinellas County, the Petitioner visited her school and left a written message for Crosby to tell him that she still was unable to meet with him and would not attend the scheduled March 1, 1993, meeting. Crosby did not get the message until the morning of the scheduled meeting. On receipt of the message, Crosby turned to the School Board's legal office for advice on how to proceed. Based on the advice of counsel, Crosby sent the Petitioner a letter stating that he viewed the delay in the interview until March 1 to be an unusual accommodation, since teacher interviews normally are conducted as soon as he becomes aware of the charges. He wrote that, since the Petitioner would not meet on March 1, as they had agreed, he would have to proceed exclusively on the basis of his interviews of students and others. In accordance with normal procedures, he also advised her that, unless she chose to resign by March 12, 1993, he would be recommending to the School Superintendent that he recommend to the School Board that the Petitioner be dismissed. On March 3, 1993, the Petitioner received Crosby's March 1 letter and wrote back in response to offer her resignation, effective June 11, 1993. In the Petitioner's own written words, she resigned "for my personal sanity and for the credibility of Michael Miller." Crosby processed the Petitioner's resignation to be considered at the March 24, 1993, School Board meeting. It is standard operating procedure to process resignations before their effective dates, if possible, so that replacement personnel can be hired. The School Board accepted the Petitioner's resignation (among others) at its March 24, 1993, meeting. The Petitioner tried unsuccessfully several times after March 24, 1993, to contact Crosby by telephone to rescind her resignation. She was unable to speak to him but was told that the School Board already had accepted her resignation and that it was too late to rescind it. In April, 1993, the Petitioner learned that the Florida Education Practices Commission of the Florida Department of Education also was investigating the allegations against her, notwithstanding her resignation. On or about June 3, 1993, the Petitioner returned to Pinellas County and met with a lawyer about getting her teaching position back and about defending her teacher certificate. On June 8, 1993, the lawyer wrote a letter to the School Board Attorney (which was received on or before June 11, 1993) purporting to rescind the Petitioner's resignation. It was not proven that the Petitioner had no choice but to resign from her position as a teacher between March 1 and March 12, 1993, due to her emotional, mental and physical condition at the time. As a result of her long-standing membership in the local teachers' union, the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA), the Petitioner knew that dues-paying members of the PCTA may be entitled to the services of an attorney, free of charge, in a teacher dismissal proceeding. She claimed that she did not know she still was entitled to free legal counsel after going on medical leave of absence as of January 27, 1993, and ceasing to pay union dues while on leave. However, there was no evidence that she inquired as to the availability of paid counsel until after the effective date of her resignation. Had she done so in a timely fashion, she would have learned before her resignation was accepted that she was entitled to the services of an attorney, free of charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 16th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6074 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Third sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that she spoke to Crosby more than once. Explaining the discrepancies between her testimony and his is problematic. But some of the telephone conversations she supposedly had with Crosby would have been on weekends (e.g., January 16 and 23, 1993), giving rise to a question as to the accuracy of her testimony. In addition, the Petitioner's own evidence suggested that her condition during this time period impaired her thought process and memory. Perhaps the Petitioner is counting unsuccessful attempts to contact Crosby as actual conversations with him. Rejected as not proven that the Petitioner acted on the advice of her physician in cancelling the March 1, 1993, meeting with Crosby. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, rejected as not proven that she resigned "under protest because of her inability to participate in the investigation due to her medical condition"; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. See 7., above. (Some of the telephone conversations she supposedly had with Crosby during this time period would have been during the spring school holidays when all school offices were closed.) Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected in part as not proven as to "rational decisions with respect to her employment"; otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4.-7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 8.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 23.-26. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (As to 25., the referee appeared to be referring to Green's medical leave of absence.) COPIES FURNISHED: Mark F. Kelly, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. P. O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Pinellas County Schools Administration Building 301 Fourth Street SW Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street SW Largo, Florida 34640-3536 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
