The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Petitioner's allegations regarding Respondent schoolteacher's purported performance deficiencies are, in fact, true, thereby justifying Petitioner's placing Respondent on statutory performance probation; (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, then, Whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected the specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and (3) Whether Respondent's employment should be continued or terminated.
Findings Of Fact Material Historical Facts At all times material to this case, Respondent Samuel K. Young ("Young") was a teacher in the Palm Beach County School District ("District"). From 1993 until July 2003, when Respondent Palm Beach County School Board ("Board") suspended him without pay, Young taught English at the Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr. School of the Arts ("Dreyfoos"), a magnet high school for students interested in an arts-centered education. In August or early September of 2001, shortly after the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, one of the Assistant Principals at Dreyfoos, Tanya Daniel, began routinely to observe Young, on an "informal" basis, while he was teaching his classes. These unscheduled, informal observations were triggered by students' complaints, of which Ms. Daniel, as Young's immediate supervisor, had been the recipient or been made aware. As time passed, the informal observations became increasingly formal. On October 25, 2001, Ms. Daniel conducted a formal evaluation of Young, using the Summative Observation Instrument, which is a tool that was developed for the Florida Department of Education's Florida Performance Measurement System. Another Assistant Principal, Leo Barrett, also started formally observing Young's classes. By early December 2001, Ms. Daniel had come to the conclusion that Young was not performing his teaching responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Specifically, Ms. Daniel believed that Young was deficient in the areas of classroom management; presentation and organization; planning; student assessment; obedience to policies and procedures; and maintenance of the learning environment. Two points are especially notable about Ms. Daniel's negative assessment of Young. First, she placed considerable reliance on student feedback. Indeed, Ms. Daniel invited and encouraged Young's students to report to her on how he was doing in the classroom. Second, she did not rely upon student performance as measured, in accordance with Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, by state and/or local assessments. On January 8, 2002, as a result of Ms. Daniel's evaluation, the Principal of Dreyfoos, Ellen Van Arsdale, placed Young on school-level performance probation pursuant to the procedures spelled out in the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) Evaluation Handbook (the "CTAS"). (Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the District and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, effective July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005 (the "Union Contract"), the District is required to conduct formal evaluations of teachers "in keeping with" the 1999 CTAS.) The CTAS provides that a teacher whose performance is found deficient must be afforded at least 30 calendar days to improve his performance to a satisfactory level. During that time, the teacher must be given "school-site assistance" to help him correct the identified performance deficiencies. Accordingly, a 30-day School-Site Assistance Plan was developed for Young and put into effect on January 8, 2002. The school-level performance probation that began in January 2002 constituted a new phase in the evaluation process. The purpose of the first phase, which lasted about three months (from September through December 2001), purportedly was to determine whether Young's performance was satisfactory or not. Thus, the first-phase evaluators should not have assumed at the outset that Young's performance was satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In contrast, during the second phase, the evaluators worked from the initial premise that Young's performance was, in fact, unsatisfactory, in the several areas noted by Ms. Daniel. The focus, therefore, was on whether Young was improving sufficiently to correct deficiencies that were assumed to exist. Throughout the school-level probationary period, a number of evaluators reviewed Young's performance. Ms. Van Arsdale conducted several evaluations, and Mr. Barrett performed at least one. Another was conducted by Dr. Lisa Troute, a Curriculum Specialist with the District. Others, too, were involved. None of the evaluators questioned the conclusion, which was based largely on Ms. Daniel's opinions, that Young's performance actually was deficient. Ms. Daniel did not observe Young's classroom performance during this second phase, evidently in consequence of Young's having voiced some concerns about her impartiality. Ms. Daniel remained an important participant in the process, however, and she continued actively to solicit students' opinions about Young's competence. On February 20, 2002, she interviewed at least three of Young's students, making handwritten notes (which are in evidence) to memorialize their respective assessments. Ms. Daniel asked one student to rate Young's performance on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being "poor" and 10 being "great"; the student gave Young a 3.5. There is no evidence that Ms. Daniel elicited the opinions of a random, representative sample of Young's students——or instead, for example, polled only the known malcontents. There is also no persuasive evidence that Ms. Daniel ever did anything but accept the students' mostly unfavorable opinions uncritically. What the evidence does establish is that Ms. Daniel put great weight on the students' opinions——so much so that the students she spoke with effectively became Young's evaluators themselves. The school-level probationary period was extended well beyond 30 days, and ended up lasting until the end of the 2001- 02 school year. By letter dated May 17, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale informed the Superintendent that Young's performance remained unsatisfactory after 91 days of school-site assistance. Specifically, it was Ms. Van Arsdale's opinion that Young's performance was deficient in the following six areas, each of which is a designated "indicator" of competence under the CTAS: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; Assessment; and Policies/Procedures/Ethics. Ms. Van Arsdale asked the Superintendent to place Young on statutory performance probation for 90 days, pursuant to Sections 231.29 and 231.36, Florida Statutes (2001). The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young during the school-level probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. In fact, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. Nevertheless, the Superintendent acceded to Ms. Van Arsdale's request. By letter dated May 20, 2002, the Superintendent notified Young that he would be placed on performance probation for 90 calendar days. The statutory performance probation——a distinct, third phase of the evaluation process——commenced in August 2002, at the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. On August 22, 2002, Young was given a Professional Development Plan, which called for the provision of assistance, as well as ongoing evaluations, through November 2002, when a final evaluation would be issued passing judgment on whether he had——or had not——corrected the alleged performance deficiencies. The statutory performance probation unfolded largely as had the school-level performance probation. Young was, again, observed and critiqued by a number of evaluators. Of the written evaluations in evidence, the most balanced is a report dated September 22, 2002, which Dr. Troute prepared concerning her observation of Young on September 10, 2002. Based on this contemporaneous report, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Trout then believed Young was a "satisfactory" teacher who could, with additional effort, be a "good" teacher. Others were less charitable, however, including Ms. Van Arsdale, who prepared Young's final evaluation based on her November 5, 2002, observation of his class. On the CTAS's evaluation form, Ms. Van Arsdale gave Young a rating of "concern" on five separate "indicators" of competence: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; and Assessment. This resulted in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young while he was on statutory performance probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. Indeed, once again, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. By letter dated November 6, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale notified the Superintendent that, in her opinion, Young had failed to correct performance deficiencies and therefore should be fired. The Superintendent agreed, and by letter dated November 14, 2002, informed Young that he would recommend to the Board that Young's employment be terminated. The Board later accepted the Superintendent's recommendation, and Young was suspended without pay, effective on or about July 16, 2003, pending his discharge. The CTAS A. Teachers who are evaluated under the CTAS are rated on 15 categories of qualities or abilities, which are referred to collectively as "indicators." Each indicator, such as, e.g., Management of Student Conduct, is best understood not as a single ability, but rather as a label for a skill-set, that is, a collection of qualities, abilities, or skills. The indicators are divided into two classes called "performance areas." The performance areas are: "A. Teaching and Learning" and "B. Professional Responsibilities." There are eight indicators under Teaching and Learning and seven under Professional Responsibilities. The CTAS uses a two-point rating scale. The only grades used for scoring a teacher on the 15 indicators are "acceptable" and "concern." The section of the CTAS's evaluation form where the grades are recorded is reproduced below, with the ratings from Ms. Van Arsdale's final evaluation of Young, dated November 6, 2002, added to show how the form is used in practice: A. TEACHING AND LEARNING ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 1. Management of Student Conduct X 2. Human Development and Learning X 3. Presentation of Subject Matter X 4. Communication X 5. Knowledge of Subject Matter X 6. Learning and Environment X 7. Planning X 8. Assessment X B. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 9. Technology X 10. Record Keeping X 11. Continuous Improvement X 12. Working Relationships with Coworkers X 13. Working Relationships with Parents X 14. Policies/Procedures/Ethics X 15. Duties as Assigned by the School Administration X The teacher's overall evaluation rating of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" depends entirely upon the combination of ratings awarded on the 15 indicators. The following combinations require an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory": NUMBER OF CONCERNS SECTION A SECTION B 3 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 As can be seen, the indicators under Section A carry greater relative weight in the overall evaluation than those under Section B. Because Young received five "concerns" on his final evaluation, the CTAS dictated that he be given an overall "unsatisfactory" rating. In rating the various indicators, evaluators are supposed to consider numerous "performance criteria." The CTAS defines the "performance criteria" as "examples of descriptors which define the indicators." To be more precise, the performance criteria are specific behaviors, acts, and practices that the teacher should be performing as an outward manifestation of the teacher's command or mastery of the respective skill-sets known as indicators. Various performance criteria are set out in the CTAS as "bullet points" under each of the indicators. The first bullet point under the first indicator (Management of Student Conduct), for example, is: "[The teacher] specifies and explains rules of conduct and provides for practice of rules when appropriate." For each of the indicators, the CTAS further provides a set of "data collection sources." The CTAS defines the term "data collection sources" as "examples of multiple data sources used to determine a rating of 'acceptable' or 'concern.'" In other words, the data collection sources are lists of "evidence" that can be examined to determine whether, and perhaps how well, the teacher is performing the prescribed performance criteria. For example, the data collection sources for the indicator Planning are: observation reports; lesson plans; conference notes; assessment data; instructional materials; and written reports. B. As we have seen already, the CTAS defines the terms "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" in a completely objective fashion. It does so by specifying the rating combinations that will result in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." Thus, anyone who knows the number of "concerns" that a teacher has received in Sections A and B can apply the formula and assign the overall grade; this ministerial function requires neither discretion nor judgment. What does demand discretion and judgment is rating the teacher's command or mastery of the respective indicators as either "concern" or "acceptable." This rating function requires that qualitative determinations be made at two distinct levels. First, for every indicator (skill-set), the evaluator must decide how well the teacher is executing each of the several subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors). Then, based on how well the teacher is executing the subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors), the evaluator must render a judgment as to how well the teacher is doing with regard to the indicator (skill-set) that comprises those performance criteria. At both stages of the analysis, to arrive consistently at fair conclusions——that is, to obtain similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time——requires (a) that there be uniform standards to guide evaluators in making the requisite judgment calls and (b) that the same standards always be applied, to all teachers in all evaluations. Thus, it is important to know what standards, if any, the CTAS prescribes. To begin, some negative findings are in order. First, the indicators are not standards upon which to make a judgment. They are, rather, the qualities to be judged, using appropriate standards of decision. Second, the performance criteria are likewise not standards. They define or prescribe the relevant facts to which, jointly and severally, standards should be applied, so as to make a judgment regarding one indicator or another.1 To illustrate, the fact that a teacher is observed "reinforc[ing] appropriate social behavior" tells us nothing about how well he does this, much less about how well he has mastered Management of Student Conduct, which indicator comprises the referenced performance criterion. Rather, to make a qualitative judgment regarding the teacher's performance of this practice requires some test, some basis, for distinguishing between good and bad performances. Similarly, the ultimate fact that the teacher acceptably "reinforces appropriate social behavior" tells us relatively little, presumably, about whether the teacher's mastery of the indicator Management of Student Conduct is acceptable or not, for there are eleven other performance criteria to be considered also in respect of this particular indicator. To make a qualitative judgment regarding whether the teacher has demonstrated an acceptable command of the skill-set known as Management of Student Conduct requires some sort of standard, some yardstick for measuring the relative importance of the teacher's demonstrated expertise (or lack thereof)——as determined by the evaluator——in the execution of the various performance criteria. The only "standards" that the evidence in this case persuasively establishes are the terms "acceptable" and "concern." Superficially, these terms seem to possess some degree of objective content. On reflection, however, it should be seen that they do not, a point which will be examined in greater detail below. The undersigned, moreover, has searched the CTAS and the record in vain for an adequate definition of these terms. As far as the proof in this case goes, these terms are criteria without content, and as such can be used as cover for almost any decision an evaluator might want to make. C. It is desirable at this point to elaborate on why the terms "concern" and "acceptable," by themselves, are not standards that evaluators (or administrative law judges or courts) can consistently and fairly apply to teachers across- the-board. As a starting point, envisage a spectrum comprising every conceivable level or degree of teacher talent, ranging from, in the abstract, "worst imaginable" (or "perfectly awful") to "best imaginable" (or "perfectly excellent"). It makes no difference, for present purposes, how exactly "worst" and "best" might be defined. Rather, it is sufficient to say of the "worst" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be worse." Conversely, it need only be said of the "best" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be better." As should be obvious, these "worst" and "best" teachers are constructs that serve to define the terminal points at either end of the "talent-level spectrum" we are calling to mind. This talent-level spectrum can be depicted with a simple drawing, as follows: Worst ? ? Best It can now be observed that all teachers, everywhere, must fall somewhere on this talent-level spectrum, between the two poles as we have defined them. Of course, the precise point at which any given teacher should be placed on the spectrum, at any given time,2 is a matter about which reasonable people, in every instance, could disagree. But that is presently of no consequence. Turning next to the facts of this case, the question is posed: Where, on this spectrum of talent, should the mark separating "concern" from "acceptable" be placed? Given their ordinary meanings, the words themselves provide no guidance in this regard. Either of the following, for example, is consistent with the plain meaning of "concern" and "acceptable": Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable It does not matter how the mark-point in either example might be defined. What matters is the relationship between the mark and the respective poles. As the mark moves closer to the "worst" terminal, the "concern" band becomes narrower, leaving more teachers on the "acceptable" side. Conversely, moving the mark towards the "best" terminal narrows the "acceptable" band, consigning more teachers to the "concern" category. In the instant case, there is no persuasive evidence on which the undersigned can base a finding as to where the mark should be placed. As a result, the undersigned cannot make de novo findings regarding whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged. To do that, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Young. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence in this case as to where the several evaluators placed the mark when they assessed Young's performance.3 The undersigned therefore cannot find that the evaluators all used the same standards——cannot even infer that they did. Consequently, assuming it were proper to do so, the undersigned could not review whether the evaluators acted fairly and appropriately vis-à-vis Young or whether they reached a "correct" (i.e. legally sustainable) judgment regarding his teaching performance.4 Student Performance The 1999 CTAS that was used in evaluating Young had been developed in 1998 and approved by then-Commissioner Tom Gallagher in January 1999. By letter dated January 25, 1999, Commissioner Gallagher informed the District that its CTAS had received "Full Approval." The Commissioner further instructed the District: [I]t will not be necessary for you to resubmit the [CTAS] unless there are statutory changes which affect the requirements for district instructional performance appraisal systems or unless you substantively revise your system for other reasons. In the very next legislative session following this letter, the legislature substantially amended the statute governing the procedures and criteria for the assessment of instructional personnel, which at the time was Section 231.29, Florida Statutes (1999).5 See Ch. 99-398, § 57, Laws of Florida. These statutory changes, which will be examined more closely in the Conclusions of Law below, took effect on June 21, 1999. Id. at § 78. The thrust of the relevant amendment was to require that, in evaluating teacher performance, primary emphasis be placed on student performance, as measured by "state assessments" and "local assessments." These latter two terms were defined, at the time, in Section 229.57, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 229.57 was subsequently transferred to Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes (2003). The District never amended the CTAS to reflect the statutory changes. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CTAS puts little or no particular emphasis on student performance6 and makes no specific references (that the undersigned can locate) to state and local assessments within the statute's contemplation.7 Consequently, as was mentioned several times above, none of the assessment procedures used during Young's protracted evaluation was primarily based on student performance as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statues (2003). Equally if not more important, however, is the lack of persuasive (indeed any) evidence in the record regarding the performance of Young's students as measured by state and/or local assessments. Because of this, it is impossible for the undersigned to make de novo findings based primarily on student performance as to either (a) whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or (b) whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Young of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Young be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Young back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2014)1/; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission (Commission).
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of elementary education and social science, and she held Florida Educator's Certificate 842941, which expired June 30, 2016. Respondent first entered the teaching profession in 1999. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County School District (HCSD). During the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, Respondent taught social science at Madison Middle School. During the years in question, HCSD had a written system for evaluating the classroom performance of its teachers. The evaluation system was reviewed and approved by the Florida Department of Education. The evaluation system consists of multiple components which, when combined, result in a final teacher evaluation performance rating. In its broadest sense, the system used by HCSD to evaluate teacher performance relies on input from a teacher’s supervising principal, input from a teacher’s peers and/or mentors, and a value-added measure (VAM) score, which is based on student achievement. According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for the HCSD, the principal’s evaluation accounts for 35 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, the peer/mentor’s evaluation accounts for 25 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, and the VAM score accounts for 40 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score. Observation and Written Evaluation Throughout the course of a school year, an evaluating principal and peer/mentors (collectively referred to as evaluators) conduct a number of formal and informal classroom “observations” of the teacher being evaluated. Findings from formal and informal observations are characterized, based on a framework of four “domains,” as highly effective, effective, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. The observations are memorialized and feedback is regularly provided to the teacher during the school year. At the conclusion of the observation cycle, the evaluators, based on the formal and informal observations, prepare a written “evaluation” which summarizes and quantifies (assigns a numerical value) the teacher’s performance for the entire school year. The framework for rating observations and scoring evaluations consists of four domains, each of which has five to six components. According to the teacher evaluation instrument, the domains and their components are as follows: Domain 1: Planning and Preparation. The components in Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery. (1A) Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy (1B) Demonstrating Knowledge of Students (1C) Setting Instructional Outcomes (1D) Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and Technology (1E) Designing Coherent Instruction (1F) Designing Student Assessments Domain 2: The Classroom Environment. The components in Domain 2 address the learning environment. This includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures. (2A) Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport (2B) Establishing a Culture for Learning (2C) Managing Classroom Procedures (2D) Managing Student Behavior (2E) Organizing Physical Space Domain 3: Instruction. The components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching –the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning. (3A) Communicating with Students (3B) Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques (3C) Engaging Students in Learning (3D) Using Assessment in Instruction (3E) Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities. The components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom. These include reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism. (4A) Reflecting on Teaching (4B) Maintaining Accurate Records (4C) Communicating With Stakeholders (4D) Participating in a Professional Community (4E) Growing and Developing Professionally (4F) Showing Professionalism The weight assigned to each domain (within either the principal or peer/mentor category) is 20 percent, with the exception of Domain 3, which is weighted at 40 percent. Domain components 4B through 4F are only reviewed by the teacher’s principal. Domain 1 addresses “planning and preparation,” and “[t]he components of Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery.” Domain 2 addresses “classroom environment,” and “[t]he components of Domain 2 address the learning environment [which] . . . includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures.” Domain 3, which again is weighted twice as much as the other domains, addresses “instruction,” and “[t]he components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching–the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning . . . [and the] components include: communicating clearly and accurately, using questioning and discussion techniques, engaging students in learning, providing feedback to students, and demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness.” Domain 4 addresses “professional responsibility,” and “[t]he components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom . . . include[ing] reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism.” For purposes of scoring a teacher’s evaluation, a zero point value is assigned whenever a domain component is given a rating of “requires action,” a single point is given whenever a domain component is rated as “progressing,” two points are given whenever a teacher is rated as “accomplished,” and three points are given for an “exemplary” rating. Value Added Measure According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for Hillsborough County, VAM is: statistical model that uses a variety of variables to estimate the expected one year learning growth of each student. The growth expectation estimate is then compared to actual growth, as measured by relevant course and content assessments. In order to measure a teacher’s impact on student achievement, the model controls for variables that are outside of the teacher’s control, such as past years’ learning growth trajectory, and special needs. In doing so, the teacher’s impact on student growth can be isolated and calculated. The VAM score is 40 percent of the teacher’s overall annual evaluation. 2012-2013 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2012-2013 school year, had one formal and two informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, and one formal and two informal observations conducted by her principal. Respondent, at the end of the 2012-2013 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. Katherine Hodges is one of the peer/mentors who observed and evaluated Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hodges was a teacher in the HCSD from 2005-2015 where she taught eighth grade U.S. history, humanities, and served as a middle school social studies peer/mentor evaluator. Twanya Hall-Clark is another individual who conducted observations of Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hall-Clark has been employed by HCSD as an educator for more than 20 years and has served as a school administrator since 2000. Ms. Hall-Clark has been trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has conducted hundreds of teacher observations and evaluations. Jeffery Colf also served as a peer/mentor and observed Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Joseph Brown served as the school principal where Respondent worked during the 2012-2013 school year, and was responsible for observing and evaluating Respondent’s performance. Dr. Brown became an educator in 1986 and a principal in 1998. Dr. Brown was trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers during his tenure as an administrator. In determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was “requires action” for component 2C; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, and 3A through 3E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2E, and 4A. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was a rating of “progressing” for every component except 4A, for which she received a rating of “accomplished.” When quantified, Respondent’s 2012-2013 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.80 and her principal evaluation score was 12.00, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.80. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 36.86. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.70 percent. In other words, 98.30 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2012-2013 VAM score was 18.7201. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.14. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 2.30 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 97.70 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year was 39.3. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2012-2013 school year was 61. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.89 percent, meaning that 99.11 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2012-2013 school year scored higher than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 39.3 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2012-2013 school year. For the 2012- 2013 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 40 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” By letter dated September 18, 2013, Respondent was notified of the deficiencies in her performance and advised that she would be placed on a teacher assistance plan for the 2013- 2014 school year. Teacher Assistance Plan Respondent, as a consequence of receiving an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year, was placed on a mandatory teacher assistance plan during the 2013- 2014 school year. The stated goal of the plan is “[t]o assist teachers who earned a previous overall Unsatisfactory evaluation so that their performance reaches a satisfactory level for the current school year.” Teachers who are placed on a teacher assistance plan are assigned a support team which is composed of experienced educators. Teacher assistance plans have “areas of focus” which correspond to the four domains covered by the annual evaluation. The teacher assistance plan developed for Respondent focused on the domains of “planning and preparation (Domain 1)” and “instruction (Domain 3).” Respondent first met with her support team on October 15, 2013, where “assistance strategies” were developed for Domains 1 and 3. The specific strategies set goals of “designing coherent instruction (component 1-e)” and “improving feedback practices (component 3-d).” During the support team meeting on October 15, 2013, Respondent explained that her unsatisfactory rating for the 2012- 2013 school year was largely attributable to the fact that she “floated” between classrooms, and that she expected improvement in her performance for the 2013-2014 school year because she had her own classroom. Support team members provided Respondent with “a packet of resources” and arranged for Respondent to observe a high-performing teacher in an instructional setting. On December 18, 2013, Respondent met with members of her support team to discuss and review Respondent’s progress towards achieving the goals established in her teacher assistance plan. A summary report from the meeting provides as follows: The meeting began with a review of the Oct. 2013 action plan meeting and an update of the action steps. Ms. Patti also presented her summary notes of the observations and action she has taken since October. Those notes are included in her folder. Ms. Patti said that she observed Mr. Kline in his science class. She liked how each student had an assigned role while in group work. Ms. Patti also showed a teacher[-]made quiz she designed based off information from the LDC lesson. For the quiz she prompted students to use text marking and identify the key concepts not just the action (such as describe or discuss). Ms. Patti is using a website titled floridacivics.org for lesson plan ideas and resources. Ms. Patti also wants to observe another teacher. Dr. Brown will ask Mr. Sullins if he is willing to have Ms. Patti observe during the third nine weeks. Suggestions were made to either have another teacher observe or have a lesson video-taped for Ms. Patti to watch herself. She did not want to pursue either option at this time. Dr. Brown will follow up to set a date for the February Action Plan review. On March 27, 2014, Respondent again met with her support team. A written summary of the meeting notes that Respondent did not meet the goal of observing another teacher’s class as discussed during the meeting on December 18, 2013. 2013-2014 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2013-2014 school year, had two formal and three informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, two formal and three informal observations conducted by her principal, and one formal observation by her supervisor. Respondent, at the end of the 2013-2014 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. As previously noted, when determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for component 3E; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2D, 3A through 3E, 4A; and “accomplished” for components 1D and 2E. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for components 4F; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, 3A through 3E, and 4B through 4E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2C, 2E, and 4A. When quantified, Respondent’s 2013-2014 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.35 and her principal evaluation score was 11.90, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.25. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2013-2014 school year was 36.86. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.47 percent. In other words, 98.53 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2013-2014 VAM score was 17.4192. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.04. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 0.85 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 99.15 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year was 37.66. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2013-2014 school year was 60.94. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.24 percent, meaning that 99.76 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2013-2014 school year scored higher than Respondent. Stated differently, in Hillsborough County public schools for the 2013-2014 school year, there were only 28 teachers of 12,068 who had a worse evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 37.66 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2013-2014 school year. For the 2013- 2014 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 42 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” Despite being on a teacher assistance plan, Respondent’s performance, relative to her peers, actually declined during the 2013-2014 school year when compared to the previous school year. By letter dated July 10, 2014, Respondent was advised that because she received unsatisfactory evaluations for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, HCSD was notifying the Department of Education of her poor performance and that she was being reassigned pending confirmation of her VAM scores for the year. By order dated April 6, 2016, the School Board of Hillsborough County terminated Respondent’s employment. Domain 3 and VAM As noted previously, Domain 3 embodies “the core of teaching.” The peer/mentor and principal comments for Domain 3 components for the 2012-2013 school year provide as follows with respect to Respondent’s performance: (3A) The teacher’s attempt to explain the purpose/relevancy of the lesson’s instructional outcomes has only limited success, and/or directions and procedures must be clarified after initial student confusion. The teacher’s explanation of the content may contain minor errors; some portions are clear; other portions are difficult to follow. The teacher’s explanation consists of a monologue, with no invitation to the students for intellectual engagement. The teacher’s spoken language is correct; however, vocabulary is limited or not fully appropriate to the students’ ages or backgrounds. (3B) The teacher’s questions lead students through a single path of inquiry, with answers seemingly determined in advance. Alternatively the teacher attempts to frame some questions designed to promote student thinking and understanding, but only a few students are involved. The teacher attempts to engage all students in the discussion and to encourage them to respond to one another, with uneven results. (3C) The learning tasks or prompts are partially aligned with the instructional outcomes but require only minimal thinking by students, allowing most students to be passive or merely compliant. Learning activities are not sufficiently challenging and lack the rigor to promote intellectual engagement. The pacing of the lesson may not provide students the time needed to be intellectually engaged. (3D) Assessment is occasionally used in instruction, through some monitoring of progress of learning by teacher and/or students. Feedback to students is uneven, and students are aware of only some of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work. (3E) The teacher attempts to modify the lesson when needed and to respond to student questions with moderate success; however, alternate instructional strategies are limited and minimally successful. The teacher accepts responsibility for student performance. In response to student progress data, the teacher re-teaches, as appropriate. Because Respondent received an overall unsatisfactory performance rating for the 2012-2013 school year, she was evaluated by her principal mid-way through the 2013-2014 school year, and again by both her principal and peer/mentor evaluator at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Respondent, for each of the evaluations performed during the 2013-2014 school year, received identical marks for the Domain 3 components, with the same deficiencies noted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(c). It is further recommended that, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(g), Respondent be prohibited from applying for a new certificate for a period of at least five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 28th day of June, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent should be discharged from employment as a tenured teacher based on his professional incompetence.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Petitioner employed Respondent as a certified tenured teacher. Respondent has 28 years of experience teaching mathematics. Michael Kemp became principal at Englewood High School (EHS) during the 2002/2003 school year. Respondent was a mathematics teacher at EHS for the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 school terms. EHS has approximately 2,050 students. It is unique in that it serves as Petitioner's secondary center for a program known as "English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)." Approximately 80 percent of the students at EHS score below a Level 3 (below standard) on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). In the 2002/2003 school year, EHS implemented a standards-based curriculum for the first time. EHS teachers, including Respondent, received training relative to new student performance standards. The teachers also received training in the use of a new mini-lesson plan format for 90-minute blocks of instruction in content areas. During the 2002/2003 academic year, Petitioner implemented a new college preparatory mathematics (CPM) curriculum and a new reading strategy for all content areas. Respondent, along with other EHS teachers, received training in the new math curriculum and reading strategies. Respondent did not transition well to the new way of teaching. He did not adjust his teaching style to accommodate a "block" schedule, which required 90-minutes of instruction for each class period. Mr. Kemp evaluated Respondent for the 2002/2003 school year. Mr. Kemp determined that Respondent's ability to plan and deliver instruction, Competency A on the annual evaluation form and the "Classroom Observation Instrument" (COI), was unsatisfactory. However, Mr. Kemp concluded that Respondent's overall performance for the 2002/2003 school year was satisfactory. For the 2003/2004 school year, EHS initiated a sheltered academic content teaching model. As a result of the new model, many ESOL students exited the core academic program and attended special ESOL classes with designated teachers in academic areas such as language arts, mathematics, and social studies. For the 2003/2004 school year, Respondent was not a sheltered content teacher. Therefore, Respondent's classes contained some ESOL students but not as great a percentage as in 2002/2003. A high student-failure rate was common at EHS for the 2003/2004 school year. That year, approximately two-thirds of Respondent's students previously had failed their required math classes and were repeating the courses. Parental complaints against teachers are normal. The complaints are not always valid. However, when the 2003/2004 school year commenced, Mr. Kemp became concerned about the number of parents who wanted their children removed from Respondent's classes. Some of the parents made the requests as soon as their children were assigned to Respondent's classes. Other parents requested reassignment of their children to other math classes as the year progressed. On November 7, 2003, a student in one of Respondent's classes became very disruptive. Respondent attempted to get the student to settle down. When his efforts were unsuccessful, Respondent directed a verbal obscenity to the student in front of other students while class was in session. Specifically, Respondent told the student to "get the f--- out" of the classroom. On November 14, 2003, Mr. Kemp had a conversation with Respondent about his unsatisfactory classroom performance. In a memorandum dated November 17, 2003, Mr. Kemp advised Respondent that a success plan would be developed and a support team identified to assist him. On December 3, 2003, Mr. Kemp observed Respondent teaching a math class. Mr. Kemp determined that Respondent did not demonstrate satisfactory teaching behaviors. Regarding Respondent's classroom management, Mr. Kemp's observations included the following: (a) Respondent did not control the classroom; (b) Students were not on task during the warm-up activity; (c) Students engaged in conversations, which were not related to the task at hand; (d) There were no apparent expectations for classroom behavior; (e) Respondent tolerated disrespectful talk from students; and (f) Respondent did not control classroom dialogue and discussions. Regarding Respondent's instructional delivery, Mr. Kemp's observations included, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Respondent did not connect the purpose of the lesson with its content; (b) Respondent lectured from the front of the class and did not vary his instructional delivery; (c) Many students were not on task; (d) Respondent continued the lesson despite statements of frustration and lack of understanding from students; (e) Respondent demonstrated content knowledge and mastery of material, but he did not successfully transfer content to students or communicate with them; (f) The lesson was not motivating; (g) Students were not engaged and ignored the lecture; (h) Except for two students who answered questions, the class was either lost or not engaged; (i) Some students requested other students to explain or teach them an assigned task; (j) Respondent circulated among the students but he had no organization as to what was being checked; and (k) Respondent was unaware that students were working on other assignments unrelated to the class work. In a memorandum dated December 4, 2003, Mr. Kemp notified Respondent that a conference had been scheduled for December 10, 2003. The purpose of the meeting was to initiate Respondent's success plan. On December 8, 2003, Mr. Kemp observed Respondent teach another math class. Mr. Kemp concluded that Respondent did not demonstrate satisfactory teaching behaviors. Mr. Kemp's observations included the following: (a) Respondent needed assistance with appropriate lesson planning for a block schedule; (b) Respondent relied too much on a lecture format with no connection between the content of the lesson and its purpose; (c) Respondent had adequate content knowledge but he was ineffective in transferring that knowledge to the students; (d) Respondent had difficulty keeping the students engaged and on task; and (e) Respondent had little control over classroom dialogue. On December 10, 2003, Respondent met with his success team. After the meeting, Respondent was given an opportunity to provide additional strategies and suggestions for improvement to the success plan. Respondent did not take advantage of this opportunity. Respondent's 2003/2004 success plan contained specific goals, objectives and tasks in the following areas: (a) Plans and delivers effective instruction; (b) Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (c) Evaluates the instructional needs of students; (d) Communicates with parents; and (e) Promotes student growth and performance. The success plan identified certain members of the success team to work with Respondent on each area of professional development. The plan provided for weekly meetings with the success team members between January 5, 2004, and March 30, 2004. The success plan required Respondent to attend professional development cluster meetings for off-site continuing education in the following subject areas: (a) Standards Based Education; (b) Rituals and Routines; and (c) Effective Communication. The success plan provided opportunity for on-site continuing education and professional development. For example, the plan required Respondent to read and summarize certain professional literature such as the following: (a) Two math chapters in Best Practices; and (b) Modules related discipline and communication in CHAMPS Foundation. Additionally, Respondent's plan required him to view a video tape related to effective interpersonal communications with students and explain in writing how he planned to implement communication strategies in his classes. Most important, the plan required Respondent to observe his math colleagues twice a month. The success plan required Respondent to develop weekly lesson plans. These lesson plans had to include mini-lesson plans for each class at least once in each daily lesson. The mini-lesson plans included FCAT warm-ups, opening, practice, and closure. The success plan required other on-going activities including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Preparing a written script and implementing appropriate questioning strategies using Bloom's Taxonomy; (b) Preparing a written script of appropriate questions for use when monitoring and probing for solutions with cooperative groups; (c) Preparing a written summary on learning modalities; (d) Preparing a written list of strategies to meet all classroom exceptionalities and learning styles; (e) providing students with written individual corrective feedback; (f) Posting dates for remediation, retesting, or revision of work; (g) Establishing and applying published classroom routines; (h) Posting classroom rules; (i) Creating and maintaining an Absentee Assignment Notebook; (j) Publishing and enforcing a procedure for recording and reporting tardies; (k) Maintaining a notebook of handouts for student access; (l) Publishing and implementing a routine for lesson closure and class dismissal; (m) Maintaining student data records in the "Success by Design" notebook; (n) Communicating with parents about unsatisfactory student performance and course recovery opportunities, using two methods and keeping a log and copies of any written communication; and (o) Creating a daily journal of professional reflections relative to improving student rapport. The success team members observed Respondent's classes and reviewed his written assignments to determine whether he was meeting the requirements of his success plan. The team members provided Respondent with verbal and written feedback about his progress or lack thereof. The success team met as a group on February 10, 2004. On March 10, 2004, Mr. Kemp made a final observation of Respondent's teaching performance. Mr. Kemp concluded that Respondent was attempting to establish a rapport with his students. However, Respondent's performance was inadequate in the following ways: (a) He needed to implement strategies to engage the students; (b) He needed assistance with lesson plans; and (c) He needed additional strategies for classroom management. Mr. Kemp met with Respondent on March 12, 2004. At the meeting, Mr. Kemp advised Respondent that he had not successfully completed the success plan. The annual evaluation that Mr. Kemp and Respondent signed at the meeting indicates that Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in the following areas: (a) Competency A--plans and delivers effective instruction; (b) Competency C--Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; and (c) Competency G--promotes student growth and performance. According to the evaluation, Respondent's overall performance for the 2003/2004 school year was unsatisfactory. As requested by Respondent, Petitioner assigned Respondent to a teaching position at La Villa School of Arts (La Villa) for the 2004/2005 school term. Connie Skinner was La Villa's principal and Jeffery Hutchman was head of the math department at La Villa. Mr. Hutchman made several attempts to contact Respondent during the summer before the 2004/2005 school year commenced. Mr. Hutchman intended to invite Respondent to a middle-school mathematics workshop. Respondent never received Mr. Hutchman's messages and therefore did not attend the workshop. At La Villa, Respondent did not have an assigned classroom. Instead, Respondent was a "traveling" teacher who changed classrooms each period. On September 3, 2004, Ms. Skinner observed Respondent teach a math class for the first time. Ms. Skinner had some positive and negative comments about her observations. Among other things, Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent circulated appropriately among the students, quickly stopped disrespect by one student, and had good questions from the class at the end of the lesson. She made the following suggestions: (a) Respondent needed to speed up the mini-lesson; (b) Respondent needed to set a time limit for student work to reduce the number of students who were not engaged or slow to start; and (c) Respondent needed to get students to the board. EHS sent La Villa a copy of Respondent's 2003/2004 success plan. On September 3, 2004, the success team at La Villa decided to use a modified version of the 2003/2004 success plan until Ms. Skinner and the La Villa success team had an opportunity to observe Respondent and develop a new success plan for the 2004/2005 school year. On October 11, 2004, Ms. Skinner made an unplanned observation in Respondent's class. The purpose of the visit was not to evaluate Respondent, but to gain additional information for the development of the new success plan. During the visit, Ms. Skinner noted, among other things, that Respondent's voice registered disgust with students for not using notes. On October 20, 2004, Ms. Skinner observed Respondent teach a math class, using the COI to evaluate Respondent's teaching behaviors. Ms. Skinner noted the following: (a) There was a great deal of confusion in a group assignment; (b) Respondent did not gain student attention at the start of the lesson; and (c) Respondent made statements showing his disdain for students and his lack of class discipline. Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory. On October 21, 2004, the success team at La Villa presented Respondent with a new success plan. The plan included specific goals and objectives to effect improvement in Respondent's ability to plan and deliver instruction, to demonstrate effective classroom management skills, to show sensitivity to student needs, to demonstrate abilities to evaluate students' instructional needs, to communicate with parents, and to promote student growth and performance. The 2004/2005 success plan required Respondent to attend training classes in "Connected Math." It also required him to attend workshops in instructional strategies and classroom management as well as other on-site and off-site continuing education programs. The 2004/2005 success plan specified that success team members would assist Respondent by explaining and demonstrating classroom strategies. Additionally, the success team members were required to observe Respondent in the classroom and provide him with feedback. Ms. Skinner observed Respondent on November 17, 2004. Among other comments, Ms. Skinner noted that Respondent's students were either not engaged or asked questions unrelated to the subject of the lesson. Ms. Skinner also concluded as follows: (a) Respondent's lesson did not include a mini lesson; (b) The content of the students' notebooks were poorly arranged and inconsistent; and (c) The students' homework folders were mostly empty and contained no teacher commentary. Ms. Skinner observed Respondent on November 24, 2004, using the COI to evaluate Respondent's teaching behaviors. Ms. Skinner determined that Respondent told the class to "shhhh" over 30 times. For this and other reasons, Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent had not demonstrated satisfactory performance. On January 20, 2005, Ms. Skinner used the COI and the Professional Behaviors Instrument (PBI) to evaluate Respondent's classroom performance. These evaluations indicated that Respondent had improved in some areas such as clarity of instruction and interaction with students, resulting in a more engaged class. However, his overall performance was unsatisfactory. On March 10, 2005, Ms. Skinner used the COI to evaluate Respondent's teaching behaviors. Ms. Skinner observed the following: (a) Respondent presented material that was hard to read; (b) Respondent handled questions poorly; (c) The pace of the lesson seemed very slow; (d) Respondent failed to praise a student for a correct answer; and (e) Respondent's tone of voice carries disdain for students. Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent's teaching behaviors were not satisfactory. On March 11, 2005, Ms. Skinner completed Respondent's annual evaluation. She concluded that his performance was unsatisfactory in the following areas: (a) Competency A, Plans and delivers effective instruction; (b) Competency D, Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; (c) Competency E, Evaluates instructional needs of students; and (d) Promotes student growth and performance. Respondent's overall evaluation indicated that his professional growth was unsatisfactory. As to Compentency A, persuasive evidence indicates that Respondent's delivery was not clear and explicit. His students did not understand the lesson objectives. His written communications included misspelling and typos. As to Competency D, the record shows that Respondent failed to provide his students with positive reinforcement. Instead, his tone of voice carried disdain when interacting with his students. As to Competency E, Respondent had an unusually high failure rate. This shows that Respondent's instruction did not meet the needs of his students. As to Competency G, Respondent did not provide for individual student needs during his classes. On March 15, 2005, Ms. Skinner and Respondent discussed his 2004/2005 success plan. Ms. Skinner advised Respondent that he had not successfully completed the plan. After each observation/evaluation, Ms. Skinner discussed her findings with Respondent. She advised Respondent of strategies for improving his teaching behaviors. While there was some improvement in the middle of the 2004/2005 school term, by the end of the year there was a reversion in Respondent's professional growth. Ms. Skinner stated that "all of the strategies for standards-based education that we had worked on and helped him to understand, we thought went by the wayside." Regarding Competency A and Competency G, Respondent was unable to improve, despite the assistance of his success teams and the specific in-service training they provided. Respondent's was unable to maintain a satisfactory level of performance for Competency D and Competency E. He made improvement in only one area, Competency C. Overall, Respondent's professional growth was unsatisfactory for consecutive annual evaluations separated by a year of in-service training to correct his deficiencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order, terminating the Respondent's employment as a tenured teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Adres Rojas, Esquire City of Jacksonville City Hall, St. James Building 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joseph J. Wise, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Did the Hendry County School Board (Board) have just cause to terminate Respondent from her employment as a paraprofessional teacher's aide?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the HCSD as a paraprofessional teacher's aide at LMS. The employment relationship between the Board and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 8, Section 8.013, Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides that "when an employee has completed three (3) years of the past five (5) with satisfactory service with the Hendry County School Board . . . and has been appointed for a subsequent year, he [sic] will be eligible for continued employment status, which status will continue year to year unless the Board terminates the employee for just cause (Emphasis furnished). Respondent was first employed with the HCSD on August 18, 1986, and worked continuously through May 25, 1999, when she was terminated. Since Respondent achieved "continued employment status," she can only be terminated for "just cause." The Board terminated Respondent for "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner" and "other sufficient cause" under School Board Policies and Procedures 218. There were no written evaluations of Respondent's performance accomplished during the first 9 years of Respondent's employment with the HCSD because the Board did not adopt its current policy until approximately 1996. However, there is no evidence that Respondent's work performance was unsatisfactory during the first 9 years of her employment with the HCSD. Respondent worked at LMS for each of those nine years of her employment with the HCSD and was routinely re-appointed for each ensuing year. The first 2 years of her employment, Respondent was assigned to work with students that were classified as "trainable mentally handicapped." Respondent had to assist these students in learning rudimentary skills such as brushing their teeth and changing their underwear. From the fall of 1988 until the spring of 1992, the equivalent of 4 school years, Respondent was assigned to the "Time Out Room." The assignment to the "Time-Out Room" was not punitive in nature, or the result of unsatisfactory work performance by Respondent. Disruptive students that caused a problem in the classroom were sent to the "Time-Out Room." The students went in the "Time-Out Room" for one period after which they usually would return to their regular class. Although Respondent was employed as a "Teacher's Aide" for exceptional education students with special needs she did not assist a teacher, but ran the "Time-Out Room" alone. After 4 years working in the "Time-Out Room," Respondent was assigned to Internal Suspension. The "Time-Out Room" was eliminated, and replaced with Internal Suspension. Internal Suspension was used as a form of discipline for students who violated school policy. Students were sent to Internal Suspension anywhere from 2 to 10 days. Internal Suspension was conducted in a double-wide trailer behind LMS. Respondent again was by herself in Internal Suspension and was not assisting a teacher. The first documentation of any performance deficiency by Respondent consists of a Procedure for Improvement form and a Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form, both dated January 22, 1996. The forms were prepared by James C. Allen, Principal of the LMS. The Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent achieved a "satisfactory" designation for 6 areas and a "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The deficiencies specified in the Procedures for Improvement form are: "Harshness in speaking with staff and students, assisting students with academic work, unacceptable activities in classroom, needlepoint, police scanner." The Procedures for Improvement form provided that Respondent had the "95/96 school year" to improve, and that Mr. Allen would "Recommend dismissal" if the deficiencies were not improved. Respondent successfully improved her performance. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote a letter to Respondent's union representative, with a copy to Respondent, stating that "I too am optimistic that improvement has occurred." On April 1, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote directly to Respondent expressing concern about "complaints/concerns" received about her conduct on a Beta Club trip to Washington, D.C., but stating, in pertinent part: These concerns cannot be overlooked, however, since we initiated procedures for improvement January 22, 1996, which dealt specifically with harshness in speaking with students/staff. Improvement has been noted. It must also be pointed out that Ms Dankanich (Beta Club sponsor) and some staff members felt that you did a good job in controlling your students and watching out for their safety and welfare. (Emphasis furnished). The March and April 1996 letters from Mr. Allen were included in Respondent's personnel file. Also included in the personnel file were letters from the Beta Club sponsor for the Washington, D.C. trip and a chaperone. These letters stated that Respondent spoke to students and adults and conducted herself in an appropriate manner throughout the trip. Respondent's annual "Overall Evaluation" for the 1995-1996 school year was "Satisfactory." Mr. Allen checked the box entitled "Reappoint based on employee's willingness to improve job dimensions not satisfactory." Respondent attained a "Satisfactory" score on 6 out of eight areas listed for job dimension with "Quality of Work" and Work Attitude" checked-off for "Needs Improvement." Respondent was reappointed and returned to LMS for the 1996-1997 school year. Respondent was assigned to assist with the "trainable mentally handicapped" students after having been on her own in the "Time-Out Room" and Internal Suspension for 8 years and working with Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students. This assignment required an adjustment for Respondent. On February 11, 1997, Allen presented Respondent with another Procedures for Improvement form and Special Non- Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. As in the preceding year, the Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The Procedures for Improvement form identified deficiencies as "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner, harshness in speaking with students/staff; unacceptable activities in classroom," and afforded Respondent the 96\97 school year to improve or be recommended for dismissal. Respondent wrote on both forms that she did not agree with them. In April 1997, 12 professional colleagues of Respondent wrote letters of support. These letters were included in Respondent's personnel file. The letters vouch for Respondent's professionalism and many stated that Respondent never was observed to engage in improper conduct or exhibit inappropriate speech or tone of voice. Throughout the second semester of the 1996-1997 school year, Respondent worked 2 class periods as a teacher's aide for Erin Berg-Hayes. Ms. Berg-Hayes was a sixth grade ESE teacher. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's job performance during the 1996-1997 school year was satisfactory. Respondent did not receive annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year. Since Respondent was not told otherwise, Respondent assumed she had improved her performance to Mr. Allen's satisfaction. Respondent received a letter of appointment at the end of the 1996-1997 school year and was reappointed for the 1997-1998 school year. For the 1997-1998 school year, the sixth grade students at LMS were moved to the Sixth Grade Center (SGC). Jodi Bell assistant principal at LMS was assigned to administer the SGC. Mr. Allen remained as principal at the LMS which consisted of seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent worked as Erin Berg-Hayes' full-time aide for the 1997-1998 school year. Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes were assigned to the SGC. Ms. Berg-Hayes characterized Respondent's job performance during the 1997-1998 school year as "good." When Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's annual evaluation, Ms. Berg-Hayes advised Ms. Bell that she was "pleased" with Respondent's performance and "on the overall [Respondent's] performance was good and satisfactory." Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's 1997-1998 annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Bell checked off "satisfactory" in the 8 areas designated for assessment. There were no check marks in the "Needs Improvement" column. On the 1997-1998 annual evaluation, Ms. Bell checked the box for "Satisfactory" as Respondent's "Overall Evaluation," and also checked the box for "Reappoint for next year." In the section entitled "Comments by Evaluator," Ms. Bell wrote: "I have appreciated your willingness to go above what is expected and help wherever help is needed. Keep up the good work!" Respondent returned to the SGC as Ms. Berg-Hayes' Aide in the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent worked together for the fall semester after which Respondent requested to be reassigned. Respondent attributed this to a personality clash with Ms. Berg-Hayes that started in July 1998. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's performance declined in the 1998-1999 school year. Cathy Lipford, teacher's aide at SGC, who worked together with Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent for one period during the entire fall semester in the 1998-1999 school year did not observe a problem with Respondent's work performance. This teachers' aide was aware of some tension between Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes. However, this aide testified that Respondent appeared to take the initiative, and assisted students, and the aide never observed Respondent speaking inappropriately to students. Ms. Berg-Hayes did not prepare any documentation of Respondent's alleged performance deficiencies during the fall semester of the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes was not consulted about Respondent's performance by Mr. Allen, the former principal of LMS or Mr. Cooper, the current principal of LMS at the time Respondent's performance was evaluated for the 1998-1999 school year, when it was decided to recommend dismissal of Respondent for failure to perform her assigned duties or other sufficient cause. During the spring semester of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent was assigned as an aide to Dorothy Lomago, a varying exceptionalities teacher for seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent and Ms. Lomago worked together from January 1999 through May 1999. Ms. Lomago had been employed by the Board for 25 years. Prior to Respondent, Ms. Lomago only had had 2 other teaching assistants. Ms. Lomago considers compassion for children and initiative as the most important characteristics for a teacher's aide in special education. Ms. Lomago rated Respondent's performance in those areas as "ineffective." Ms. Lomago considered Respondent adequate in performing clerical tasks such as copying papers and grading papers. Ms. Lomago did not document Respondent's performance deficiencies. Ms. Lomago neither counseled nor corrected Respondent. Likewise, Ms. Lomago never brought to Respondent's attention the things she believed Respondent failed to do or did wrong. Ms. Lomago merely did what she was told to do by Mr. Cooper when he arrived at LMS in March 1999. On March 31, 1999, Respondent went to Mr. Allen's office for her 1998-1999 annual evaluation. R. Scott Cooper, assistant principal, Ms. Jodi Bell, assistant principal, Mr. Allen, and Ms. Davis, assistant principal were present in Mr. Allen's office upon Respondent's arrival. This meeting was terminated after Mr. Allen indicated there was a problem and asked Respondent if she wanted union representation. Respondent replied that she thought it would be wise. Before the meeting on March 31, 1999, Respondent was not aware that her job performance was considered deficient. Respondent had not been told of any deficiencies and had not received any counseling. In March/April 1999, Mr. Allen retired, and was replaced as principal of LMS by Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper arrived at LMS some time in the last 2 weeks of March 1999. Respondent and Mr. Cooper had had no professional contact before March 1999. Mr. Cooper met with Respondent on April 16, 1999, for Respondent's 1998-1999 annual evaluation. Mr. Cooper gave Respondent 4 separate Procedures for Improvement forms and an Annual Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. This was Respondent's first notice of her specific performance deficiencies for the 1998-1999 school year. Mr. Cooper never conducted a formal observation of Respondent's job performance. Mr. Cooper based the annual evaluation predominantly on a review of the school board records, and on discussions with Mr. Allen, Ms. Bell, and Ms. Davis. The Procedures for Improvement forms specified the following deficiencies: "Work Attitude - able to successfully work with co-workers and students"; "Initiate Resourcefulness - ability to identify what needs to be done"; ""Dependability"; and "Quality of Work." The forms identified the following means of judging success in overcoming the foregoing deficiencies, respectively. "Supervisors will observe appropriate student/aide interactions in all circumstances"; "decreased necessity for teacher/supervisor to redirect Ms. Bennett's activities"; "Ms. Bennett will demonstrate the ability to effective [sic] facilitate school functions - adhere to work requirements"; and "Higher quality of work - decrease in errors." As a Statement of Assistance Offered, all of the forms provided: "Ms. Bennett may meet with Mr. Cooper weekly to obtain suggestions and assistance" Respondent was given until May 10, 1999, to improve her deficiencies. This was a period of 3 weeks or 15 school days. On Respondent's Annual Non-Instructional Personnel form, Mr. Cooper checked-off 4 out of 8 areas for "Needs Improvement" with "Satisfactory" checked for the remaining 4 areas. Mr. Allen checked "Unsatisfactory" for the "Overall Evaluation" and checked the box "Dismissal." Respondent noted her disagreement with the evaluation. On May 19, 1999, Mr. Cooper formally recommended dismissal of Respondent. Respondent received a Notice of Recommendation of Dismissal on that date. The Board approved Respondent's dismissal on May 25, 1999. During the 3 week period Respondent was given to improve her performance, neither Mr. Cooper nor any other administrator met with Respondent to advise her as to whether she was improving. There is no documentation whatsoever of Respondent's lack of improvement. During the 3 weeks Respondent was to improve her performance, she received repeated assurance from Ms. Lomago that they would be working together the following year. Ms. Lomago never advised Respondent that her performance continued to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, no one from the Board or any school administrator advised Respondent that she was not complying with the Procedures for Improvement or that her work continued to be unsatisfactory. Not hearing otherwise, Respondent considered her work to be satisfactory and did not meet with Mr. Cooper to obtain suggestions and assistance. The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to perform her assigned duties in a satisfactory manner during the 1998-1999 school year or that the Board had just cause or any other sufficient cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board reinstate the employment of Annette Bennett-Edwards and provide for back pay and benefits retroactive to May 25, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Upthegrove Superintendent Hendry County School District Post Office Box 1980 LaBelle, Florida 33935-1980 Richard G. Groff, Esquire Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Betruff and St. Paul, P.L. Post Office Drawer 9480 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman and Coleman Post Office Box 2989 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's termination of employment by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, was proper.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as a teacher at Charles R. Drew Middle School, pursuant to an annual contract and holds Florida Educators Certificate Number 188727. Respondent holds a bachelor of science degree from Florida Atlantic University. She was employed by Petitioner in 1997 and has worked in the teaching profession for approximately 30 years. Prior to 1997, Respondent was a substitute teacher in Broward County, Florida, and in other states. During the 1999- 2000 school year, Respondent taught eighth grade science. Teachers employed by the School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"). TADS was approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and UTD. The identical TADS evaluations are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veterans. TADS objectively measures 68 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. At all times material hereto, TADS was used to evaluate Respondent's performance. TADS includes the following factors in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and assessment techniques. All teachers are contractually required to be informed of the criteria and procedures. At the beginning of each school year, school principals are required to review the assessment criteria with all faculty. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school principals and assistant principals who are trained and certified. The TADS training encompasses four days and includes the following components: strategies for pre-observation, classroom observation, decision-making with the Classroom Assessment Instrument, post-observation interview, prescription/probation of professionals, recommendations for improvement (prescriptive activities), assisting teachers in the design of instruction and improvement activities, practical activities such as video assessment, and actual classroom teacher assessment under the supervision of a trainer. The trained observer is responsible for recording any deficiencies identified during the observation period and providing a prescription plan for performance improvement. Within five work days, a post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response, either in the space provided in column 3 of the "Prescription for Performance Improvement" or by separate document that becomes part of the teacher's file. The teacher is required to comply with the activities provided in the prescription plan, which are usually obtained from the "Prescription Manual," and to meet the deadlines set forth in the column designated "Timeline" in the prescription performance improvement plan. As a result of the statutory amendments to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, the School Board and UTD executed a Memorandum of Understanding on December 4, 1997, for the purpose of amending the TADS procedures to comply with the new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a "conference for the record" initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Each observation is independent, and there must be periodic observations during the performance probation period in which the employee is apprised of his or her progress and is provided assistance through prescription plans. After the performance probation period is concluded, a "confirmatory observation" occurs without a prescription plan. On November 8, 1999, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Paulette Covin during science class. Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in Category III, Classroom Management; Category IV; Techniques of Instruction; and Category V, Teacher-Student Relationships. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not effectively use verbal or non- verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Several students continuously misbehaved and violated classroom rules. Four students were engaged in drawing during the lesson. One student slept throughout the entire observation which lasted over one hour. Six students talked throughout the observation period. Several students left their seats without permission and walked around the classroom during the observation period. Respondent did not use techniques effectively to maintain the attention of off-task learners. Clear expectations of student behavior and a systematic approach to proper classroom discipline were not evident. Respondent blew a whistle in an attempt to redirect off-task behavior, but there was no connection between the whistle-blowing and the expected behavior. The students did not react at the use of the whistle. Classroom rules were referred to; however, disruptive students were not dealt with quickly and appropriately. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because Respondent failed to provide background information explaining why the topic of waves was being discussed. Respondent asked students if they remembered what they had learned about waves and electromagnetic spectrum. A student responded, "You did not teach us that." Moreover, lesson components were not properly sequenced. Without any segue or introduction from one activity to another, Respondent told the students to engage in jump-in reading and later, buddy reading. Respondent did not provide students with examples of demonstrations for the lesson she was teaching. Respondent did not provide students with feedback. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because Respondent did not promote a positive interpersonal environment in her classroom. She did not encourage her students who had difficulty responding. She demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding for students who responded poorly during the observation, and did not solicit involvement from students who appeared reluctant to participate. She failed to take corrective action when one student gave a response and another student yelled out, "Dummy that's not right." During the post-observation conference for the record held on November 15, 1999, Respondent was advised that her performance was unacceptable, and effective immediately, was being placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. She was informed that, at the end of her probation period, it was her responsibility to demonstrate that she had corrected the identified deficiencies. On November 17, 1999, Respondent received a prescription for performance improvement. Assistant Principal Covin made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The plan included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and submitting a summary of the verbal and non- verbal discipline techniques used by that teacher to redirect off-task learners. Respondent was directed to create a classroom management plan for implementing techniques to redirect off-task learners, chart implementation for one week, and then discuss the results with Assistant Principal Covin. In addition, Respondent was directed to review reading strategies learned during in-service training sessions and submit a paper describing ways in which Respondent could provide instruction accommodations for more than one learning style. Additional resources, including administrators and fellow teachers, were also made available to Respondent. Respondent submitted her completed prescription activities before the December 3, 1999, deadline. On December 13, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her science class by Assistant Principal Andy Granados as a subsequent evaluation to apprise Respondent of her progress. Respondent was found unsatisfactory in Category I, Preparation and Planning; Category III; Classroom Management; and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had failed to develop written lesson plans, as required. Instead, Respondent advised Assistant Principal Granados that "the lesson plans were in her head." Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she was unaware that several students were engaged in off-task behavior. Three students left their seats without permission and went to other students' desks to talk casually. One student sat in his chair but did not attempt to complete any work. Seven students held private conversations and Respondent made no attempt to redirect them. Throughout the observation period, students walked aimlessly, sharpened pencils, visited with other students, and disturbed the class. Respondent failed to address their behavior. Although Respondent blew a whistle, there was no connection between the whistle blowing and any expected behavior. Respondent's use of verbal and non-verbal techniques to redirect the off-task behavior was completely ineffective. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she failed to provide any background for the lesson at hand. The lesson began without introduction and the activities in the class were unrelated. Respondent distributed two worksheets. The first worksheet involved an exercise comparing energy and the second was an isolated word game. She did not provide the students with any explanation about either sheet. Students repeatedly asked, "Why are we doing this?" Assistant Principal Granados held a post-observation conference with Respondent on January 10, 2000, to discuss his findings. Although the observation took place on Monday, December 13, 1999, Respondent, admittedly, was absent on December 14 and 15, 1999, and again on January 3-7, 2000. Furthermore, the holiday break extended from December 18, 1999, to January 2, 2000. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony that she was present on two workdays, December 16 an 17, between the date of the observation and the post-observation conference held January 10, 2000, Petitioner complied with the five-work day time requirement for the post-observation conference. During their post-observation conference, Assistant Principal Granados made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The directions included writing and submitting daily lesson plans containing objectives, activities, procedures, assessments, and homework. Respondent was directed to observe a fellow teacher and identify instances where non-verbal techniques were used to maintain the attention of the students. She was also directed to prepare a plan for student behavior with rewards and consequences, to read specific pages for the TADS Prescription Manual, and to complete certain activities in that manual. Additionally, Respondent was directed to create a written outline with an introduction to each lesson indicating the relationship between the written instructional objectives, and the planned activities. The written outline was required to be attached to Respondent's lesson plans. Respondent's prescription plan activities were due on January 28, 2000. Respondent requested and received an extension of time to complete the activities until January 31, 2000, and completed the assigned activities on time. On February 8, 2000, Respondent was formally observed again in her science class by Assistant Principal Edward Bethel. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there was no clear expectations for acceptable behavior. Students were engaged in off-task behavior. Four students left their seats without permission, while six students chewed gum and talked throughout the lesson. Respondent blew a whistle but the students continued to talk. Students who interacted inappropriately or interfered with the work of others were not disciplined appropriately. Two students fought over a stool, while a male student tried to remove a book from a female student. Respondent did not intervene. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because there was no background given for the lesson presented and lesson components were not properly sequenced. Respondent listed six unrelated activities on the board. The students were confused about the unrelated assignments and the relationship between the assignments and what they had learned in the previous lesson. In the middle of the lesson, Respondent interrupted the students and read to them about the life of Frederick Douglas. Respondent failed to explain the connection between the life of Frederick Douglas and the lesson objective of the day which involved an animal's environment influencing survival. During the post-observation conference on February 15, 2000, Assistant Principal Bethel made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included observing a fellow teacher and identifying five verbal and five nonverbal techniques to maintain specific behaviors of learners. Respondent was instructed to submit to Assistant Principal Bethel techniques that could be used to develop clear expectations to deal with students appropriately. Respondent was instructed to list the name of each student who acted inappropriately, and to submit a written plan to Assistant Principal Bethel as to how Respondent would handle negative behavior in the classroom. In addition, Respondent was directed to read specific pages from the TADS Prescription Manual, and to complete certain activities in that manual. Respondent was directed to create a written outline with an introduction to each lesson indicating the instructional objectives, the planned activities, and a description of how those activities will assist the students in reaching the instructional objective. Respondent submitted her completed activities in a timely manner. On March 9, 2000, two days after Respondent's 90-day performance probation period ended, Principal Ronnie Hunter performed a confirmatory observation to determine if Respondent's deficiencies had been corrected. Principal Hunter formally observed the Respondent in her science class and rated her unsatisfactory in Category II, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Category III, Classroom Management; Category IV; Techniques of Instruction; and Category VI, Assessment Techniques. After the confirmatory observation, Respondent was notified that she had failed to correct her performance deficiencies. Thereafter, on March 9, 2000, Principal Hunter forwarded to the Superintendent of Schools his recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. By letter dated March 10, 2000, the Superintendent notified Respondent that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated because she failed to correct performance deficiencies during her 90-calendar-day performance probation period. The assistance provided to Respondent through her prescriptions was substantial and appropriate to remedy her cited deficiencies. Although she claims that in-service training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies were not provided, she was directed to and observed several fellow colleagues engaged in teaching. Dr. O'Donnell, a 31-year veteran with the school system and an expert in TADS and teacher assessment, specifically testified that in-service training is not limited to formal education or workshops, but includes observation of fellow teachers. Although the School Board provided sufficient and meaningful in-service training opportunities to Respondent, she failed to show improvement. Respondent further claims that the School Board failed to meet TADS requirements after she was placed on a 90 calendar- day performance probation in October 1999, following the initial and rescinded observation conducted by Principal Hunter on October 12, 1999. Respondent claims that after she was initially placed on probation in October, Principal Hunter failed to notify her that she was being removed from probationary status due to a procedural error. Principal Hunter testified he rescinded the October 12, observation and verbally told Respondent that he was removing her from the 90-calendar- day performance probation because he did not get a required signature on the post-observation report. Respondent on the other hand, claims she did not receive notification and, as a result, believed the observation conducted by Paulette Covin on November 8, 1999, and the subsequent observations conducted on December 13, 1999, and February 8, 2000, were observations within the 90 calendar-day probation period. Respondent's claim that she never received notice that she was no longer on probation following the October 1999 observation is disingenuous. Notwithstanding Principal Hunter's credible testimony that he verbally informed her that she was no longer on probation, Respondent was clearly placed on notice that she was on probation beginning November 17, 1999. Specifically, on November 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent following her unsatisfactory observation held on November 8, 1999, during which Respondent received a written prescription and was informed in writing that, as a result of that unsatisfactory observation, she was being placed on the 90-calendar-day performance probation period. Moreover, on November 17, Respondent signed the summary of the conference-for-the-record which clearly and unambiguously stated, "You were advised of the availability of personnel to assist you during the 90 calendar-day Performance Probation, which commences upon the date that you receive the written prescription." In addition, the School Board committed no statutory violation of any TADS procedures by rescinding the October 12 unacceptable observation. In fact, under TADS the School Board could not rely on the October 12 unacceptable observation to dismiss Respondent because the post-observation report lacked a required signature. The School Board correctly rescinded the October 12 unacceptable observation. The TADS' requirements and procedures were properly executed regarding the formal observations of Respondent and the evaluations of her teaching performance. Petitioner complied with all of the statutory time frames. Respondent also failed to demonstrate that Principal Hunter created a hostile environment toward Caucasian female teachers that resulted in the termination of Respondent's employment. There was no reliable evidence that Principal Hunter discriminated against Respondent at any time including his formal observations of Respondent pursuant to TADS. While Principal Hunter performed two formal observations noting Respondent's deficiencies including the rescinded observation on October 12, 1999, and the confirmatory on March 9, 2000, three different assistant principals also objectively evaluated and rated her unsatisfactory prior to Principal Hunter's confirmatory observation finding Respondent's performance unacceptable. Moreover, Principal Hunter interviewed and hired Respondent as a teacher in 1997. Finally, although the School Board's contract with UTD provides for a joint labor/management committee called the "TADS Monitoring Committee" to resolve evaluation and procedure disputes, Respondent never objected to the criteria, procedures, or assessments of the committee. In sum, Respondent failed to demonstrate that TADS procedures were not followed, or establish that she was harassed or discriminated against by Principal Hunter. On the other hand, Petitioner presented competent substantial evidence that Respondent consistently performed at an unsatisfactory level and failed to correct her deficiencies during the probationary period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Valerie Kiffin Lewis, Esquire Valerie Kiffin Lewis, P.A. 4801 South University Drive, Suite 102 The Atrium Centre Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33328 Timothy A. Pease, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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.
Findings Of Fact Until March 23, 1994, the Respondent, James Ray, was a drama teacher on annual contract at the Pinellas County Center for the Arts (PCCA) program at Gibbs High School in St. Petersburg, Florida. He had been on successive annual contracts since 1990. PCCA is a special program for the arts. It is located at Gibbs High School and operates under the purview of the Gibbs High Principal and her administration. But it operates separately under the direction of its own Coordinator, who reports to the Principal, and has its own Guidance Counselor, who works primarily with the Coordinator, while also part of the school's guidance office. The education and work experience of those hired as PCCA teachers tend to be primarily in the performing arts, as opposed to being in formal classroom teaching. PCCA's class schedule differs from that of the regular Gibbs High students. While regular students are dismissed from school at approximately 2 p.m., PCCA students are in class until approximately 3:30 p.m. The Incident on February 10, 1994 During a class the Respondent was teaching at approximately 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 1994, a student of the Respondent, named Marshal, came to the door of the Respondent's classroom and got the Respondent's attention. The Respondent went to the door, and the student asked the Respondent to step out in the hall. When the Respondent did, the student and another student of the Respondent, named Sean, pointed to a third student, who had fallen out of a chair near the door in the hallway and was lying on the floor. The two apparently sober students told the Respondent, and Respondent could see for himself, that the student lying on the floor was inebriated to the point of being incapacitated. Marshal and Sean told the Respondent that the inebriated student had been drinking. The Respondent presumed that they were referring to alcohol consumption. The Respondent told Marshal and Sean that he was going to contact a school administrator, but they pleaded with him instead to let them take the inebriated student home. They assured the Respondent that they could manage it, and the Respondent agreed to let them do so. Since the regular Gibbs High students were being dismissed from school, the Respondent advised them to go out the back door of the school so as to encounter the fewest people possible. The Respondent did not know the name of the inebriated student. He vaguely recognized the student but did not know from where. The Respondent did not think the inebriated student was in any of the Respondent's classes. The Respondent never inquired as to the identity of the student. After dealing with the students who had come to the door, the Respondent returned to his classroom to advise his class that he had to leave the classroom and to have one of his students lead dance exercises in his absence. He then went to the office a guidance counselor, Cody Clark, to report the incident. However, since he did not know the inebriated student's name, he was unable to identify him for Clark. The three students already had left, and the Respondent did not know where they were. He and Clark concluded that there was nothing more that could be done at that time. After speaking with Clark, the Respondent returned to his classroom. By the end of class, Marshal returned to the Respondent's class and told the Respondent that Sean had taken the inebriated student home on a regular school bus. This time, he indentified the inebriated student by name. Marshal also informed the Respondent that he had videotaped David, the inebriated student, while he was drunk in order to communicate an anti-drinking message to the other students. (The theme of the message was supposed to be, roughly, "make sure you never get this drunk.") The Respondent did not ask to see the video and did not ask whether David agreed its being recorded and shown. The Incident on February 11, 1994 The next morning, February 11, 1994, the Respondent had only four students in his first period class. (Some of his students apparently observed what some called "national skip day.") Someone came by his classroom to tell him that the videotape of David drunk the day before was going to be shown in the first period classroom of another teacher, Keven Renken. At the time, the Respondent thought that the video had been recorded after the three students had left the Respondent's classroom door on the previous afternoon. He again did not ask to preview the video. Although the Respondent did not ask, he had the impression that David was aware of and agreed to the showing of the videotape. The Respondent also was assuming that Renken had approved of the showing. He did not verify either assumption. Meanwhile, Marshal had only told Renken that he had "a film of someone being drunk." He also told Renken that the purpose of the videotape was to communicate an anti-drinking message. It was not clear from the evidence that Renken understood the video to be a recording of a student actually being intoxicated, as opposed to acting. Marshal managed to give Renken the impression that the Respondent had approved the showing of the videotape, and Renken did not preview the tape. When the Respondent and his four students arrived at Renken's class, Renken was attending to matters at his desk, and the video had just begun. The Respondent told Renken that he understood that a videotape was being shown in Renken's classroom. This question confirmed to Renken that the Respondent already knew something about the videotape and, perhaps, had previewed it and had approved it. The teachers did not discuss with each other whether the videotape had been previewed or approved. When Marshal saw that the Respondent and his class were arriving, he rewound and restarted the tape. The Respondent stood and watched the videotape with the students while Renken continued to attend to the matters at his desk. Soon after the Respondent arrived, Renken got up from his desk and asked the Respondent to be in charge of both classes while he left the classroom to copy some paperwork. The Respondent naturally agreed, and Renken left the classroom for approximately fifteen minutes. When Renken returned to the class the videotape was almost over. (It only lasted approximately 25 minutes.) It is not clear at what point in the showing of the videotape Renken left the room, or what point he later returned. He did not see very much of it. The Respondent, on the other hand, watched the entire videotape with the students. The videotape, which actually had been made during the morning on the previous day, was disgusting. It began by showing David unconscious on the floor of a room in Marshal's house next to what appeared to be, and what Marshal described on the videotape as being, green vomit. Right at the outset, Marshal mocked David for having gotten so drunk and verbally abused him by calling him names that were vulgar, humiliating and denigrating. From the beginning, the Respondent (and, if he was watching, Renken) should have realized: (1) that the videotape was inappropriate for viewing by the class; (2) that he should have suspected that David had not agreed to its viewing by the class; and (3) that he should have suspected that Renken did not knowingly approve showing the videotape to the class. He should have stopped the tape at least to question David and Renken. The longer the tape ran, the more obvious and clear these judgments should have become to the Respondent. Subsequent footage showed David, while still lying unconscious on his stomach, being dragged by his feet, with his face scraping along the floor, out of the house and onto a concrete porch, leaving a trail of green vomit. On the porch, the other teenagers present (all male) continued various forms of physical and verbal abuse (which continued throughout the videotape.) When David regained semi-consciousness and began to move, they allowed him to fall off the porch on his face. (The porch was approximately two feet above ground level.) As he was leaning against the porch while trying to stand up, still only semi-conscious and totally incapable of protecting himself, they took turns pouring hot and cold water, flour, and urine on him. In a later segment, David is shown standing outside the house and is heard trying to protest and plead with the teenagers to stop hosing him down with a garden hose. He is seen attempting to stagger away and returning to the concrete porch, and it is obvious that he easily could have fallen and seriously injured himself. He stops on the porch to lean against the house, and the physical and verbal abuse continues. In a third segment, David is seen lying in a bathtub, again unconscious. There, the physical abuse continues. The other teenagers pour shampoo, gel, and powder on him. Later, they put nail polish and lipstick on his face, and one of them grabs his hair and bangs the back of his head against the bathtub. Finally, they take turns standing spread-eagle on the edge of the tub and attempting to urinate on David. At least some, but maybe not all, of them actually urinate on him. The Respondent exhibited appallingly poor judgment in passively watching the videotape to its conclusion. It was clearly probable, if not absolutely obvious, that showing the videotape to the class was humiliating and denigrating, not only to David but to the others as well. (Although Marshal and Sean obviously did not realize it, the videotape raised serious questions about their character.) Yet, the Respondent concluded that he did not have "the right" to stop the videotape because it supposedly was the result of Marshal's and Sean's attempt at artistically and creatively expressing an "anti-drinking" message. It is difficult to detect the supposed artistic or creative content in the videotape. Even if there were any, the Respondent clearly should have recognized his "right" as a teacher to stop the humiliating and degrading videotape. He did not even think to stop it in order to ascertain whether Renken and David indeed had approved of showing it. (In fact, neither had.) After the videotape finished, the Respondent left with his class. Neither he nor Renken confiscated the videotape to prevent it from being shown again. As a result, between class periods, Marshal began to show it again. When guidance counselor Clark looked in to check the classroom, where he was planning to lead a tour during the next period, he briefly saw what was going on and told Marshal to stop the tape and bring it to him later. (Clark did not confiscate the tape either. It was not clear from the evidence what parts of the videotape Clark was able to see.) When the Respondent returned to the classroom, where his next class was being held, Marshal was in the process of showing it again. This time, the Respondent told him to stop the tape but still did not confiscate it. Expectations of Pinellas County Teachers At the beginning of each school year, all Pinellas County teachers receive a copies of the Pinellas County Teacher Handbook and Code of Student Conduct. They are told to read and be familiar with them. According to the Pinellas County Teacher Handbook, while the use of guidance counselors for help with minor discipline problems related to instruction is permissible, for other discipline problems teachers are to contact the appropriate assistant principal. While the Teacher Handbook encourages teachers to "handle as many discipline problems as possible without jeopardizing the learning environment," it also provides that major offense should be referred directly to the assistant principal's office. The Teacher Handbook includes, among disciplinary offenses classified as major, being in possession or under the influence of "an unknown substance." The Teacher Handbook also includes the following provisions from an outdated version of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession: Obligation to the student requires that the educator: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety. The Teacher Handbook also requires that teachers be familiar with the "Code of Student Conduct." Among other things, the "Code of Student Conduct" prohibits the use or possession of illegal drugs, materials, substances, or alcoholic beverages on school property or prior to arriving at school and provides that a student violating the prohibition will be suspended and recommended for expulsion. Impact on Teacher Effectiveness David did not agree to showing the videotape. On the morning of Friday, February 11, 1994, Marshal and Sean told him that they had videotaped David while he was drunk the day before and that Marshal had the videotape. They said they were going to show the video in class that day. David did not think they were telling him the truth and did not think there actually was such a videotape. In any event, he was preoccupied as a result of also being told by Marshal and Sean that they had brought him to school the day before. He was concerned that he may have been "referred" to the administration for discipline for being intoxicated on campus. David went to ask guidance counselor Clark and was told that Clark had not "referred" him but that the Respondent might have. When he went to see the Respondent between the first and second period of class, the Respondent revealed to David that there was a videotape and that it already had been shown during first period in Mr. Renken's class. David then went to Renken's first period classroom, where Marshal and Sean were showing the videotape again. David watched for just a short time, but long enough to be shocked and disgusted, as well as humiliated. He left the classroom and went to report to Clark what Marshal and Sean were doing. David has been seriously adversely affected by the videotape and its having been shown at school. He already did not have a good self-concept. As a result of the videotape and its being shown at school, and the aftermath, including this proceeding, he now is in counseling. He thinks former friends and aquaitances have been avoiding him. He verbalizes strong anger at, disillusion with, and distrust of Marshal and Sean. He thought they were his friends but no longer does after what they did. He does not verbalize similar feelings about the Respondent. To the contrary, he appreciates the Respondent's willingness to allow Marshal and Sean take him home from school on Thursday, February 10, and does not blame him very much for the videotape being shown the next day. On the other hand, he blames himself for causing the Respondent's dismissal and is experiencing difficulty dealing with the resulting guilt he feels. On the other hand, David's mother faults the Respondent on several counts. First, she believes he should have taken steps to ascertain what David's problem was on the afternoon of Thursday, February 10, instead of taking the word of Marshal and Sean that he was drunk, presumably on alcohol, but that he was "okay." Second, she thinks she should have been notified so that she could have made arrangements to get David home and take care of him. Third, she thinks the Respondent exposed not only David but, as far as he knew, also other students to safety risks by allowing Marshal and Sean to take David home on the bus. Finally, she faults him for allowing the videotape to be shown in the classroom on Friday, February 11. She thinks the Respondent should be dismissed. She would no longer entrust the Respondent with David's safety and welfare, and she does not think the Respondent should be entrusted with the safety and welfare of any other students. She has given the School Board notice that she and her husband intend to claim damages for personal injuries to David as a result of the incidents on February 10 and 11. Several other students also were appalled at the videotape that was shown on Friday, February 11. They also found it to be disgusting, degrading, and humiliating. They empathized with David and were upset at Marshal and Sean and the other teenagers involved in making the videotape. They also were surprised and perplexed that the teachers were allowing it to be shown. They kept watching the Respondent as the videotape was being shown to see if he was going to stop it. The evidence is that, as a result of the incidents on February 10 and 11, the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the school district has been seriously impaired. At the same time, many other students and parents think the Respondent can continue to teach effectively. Without question, except for the incidents on February 10 and 11, the Respondent has been a fine teacher. Some report that he is one of the best teachers in the school. Except for the incidents on February 10 and 11, he has been caring and concerned for the students. The students have responded to those good qualities and have liked and respected the Respondent. The Respondent has been able to engage his students in the learning process and elicit a good educational response from his students. The incidents on February 10 and 11 represent unfortunate blemishes on an otherwise commendable teaching record. It certainly is possible that the Respondent will be able to rehabilitate himself so as to be worthy of consideration for future annual contracts with the School Board. Discipline of Others Involved The Respondent was not the only School Board employee who was disciplined for conduct related to the incidents on February 10 and 11, 1994. Cody Clark was reprimanded for not notifying administration and David's parents at approximately 3:30 p.m., when he first learned from the Respondent that David was the intoxicated student who had been brought to the Respondent's classroom earlier that afternoon, and for not confiscating the videotape he saw Marshal playing the next morning. Keven Renken was suspended without pay for ten days for his role in allowing the videotape to be shown on Friday, February 11, 1994. It is found that the nature and extent of their roles, and questions regarding the extent of their knowledge of the content of the videotape, can justify taking less severe action against them. There was no evidence of any similar incidents involving School Board employees. The Respondent introduced evidence of discipline resulting from other kinds of incidents in an attempt to demonstrate that dismissal is too severe in relation to the Respondent's actions (or inactions). But those other incidents were too dissimilar to compare with the Respondent's action (or inaction) in this case, and the School Superintendent explained valid reasons for viewing the action (or inaction) by the teachers involved in those cases as being less egregious.
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 Respondent, James Ray, from employment under his annual teaching contract. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of June, 1994, 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 13th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1631 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-40. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary, and last sentence is conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Also, most of the news articles reported phases of the dismissal process. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated. 2.-4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 5.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. As to E-2, accepted but unnecessary. (Also, omits: "i.e., contacting parent, detentions.") As to E-3, rejected as not supported by the evidence. 12.-13. Accepted but unnecessary. However, the statements and clear inferences in the handbooks and rules, including the excerpts from an outdated version of the Principles of Code of Professional Conduct, required the Respondent to act differently than he did. 14.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. As to the second sentence: rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "the purpose" was to dissuade other students from abusing alcohol; accepted and incorporated that Marshal and Sean stated that was a purpose of the videotape. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not established that they "drug" [sic] David, or that Clark was listed as an administrator. (Clark was listed as a "Counselor.") Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that they said David was "drunk" or "messed up." (They said he was "sick." They assured her twice that David was nonetheless "alright." The third time she asked, David managed to lift his head and smile at her. She thought they were acting.) Otherwise, accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 26-27. Accepted but unnecessary. (It was not clear from the evidence that they knew or should have known David's condition.) Accepted and incorporated. (However, it would not have been Clark's job, and apparently was not Clark's nature, to reprimand the Respondent. He certainly communicated to the Respondent that there was not much either of them could do without the identity of the intoxicated student, and the two of them engaged in considerable effort to try to deduce the student's name.) Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that Marshal came back "shortly" after the Respondent left Clark's office. 31.-35. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 36. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 37.-38. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the period was "short"; it was about 15 minutes. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. 41.-42. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not being clear from the evidence why the Respondent did not let Marshal show the tape during the second class period; however, that is the reason given by the Respondent in his testimony. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that there were no "drastic reactions." The Respondent himself found the tape to be "disgusting," and so did several other students. However, they apparently were following his lead, looking at the Respondent and waiting to see his reaction (reasonably, expecting him the stop the showing.) Also, rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that the Respondent did not shut off the videotape only because "he did not want to override Mr. Renken." He also testified that he did not want to stifle the "creativity" of Marshal and Sean. It is not clear why the Respondent had the poor judgment to let the videotape be shown. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not established by the evidence. 48.-52. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 53. As to the first sentence, he testified that students needed to be protected, not teachers. Second and third sentences, rejected because he made it clear that each case is decided on its own facts and that the Respondent's evidence did not recite all of the pertinent facts. From the facts contained in the Respondent's evidence, the Superintendent recalled: in one case, a teacher got a three-day suspension for pushing a student, who did not belong in the classroom and refused to leave, out the door, accidentally causing the student to bump his head and cut his arm slightly; in another, a teacher got a five-day suspension for becoming upset at a student who hit him in the face with a thrown wad of paper, chasing the student with a stool, and accidentally injuring the student's hand slightly when he threw the stool on the floor; and, in a third, a teacher was suspended for five days for drinking off campus with adult students and for driving them and a school staff member while "appearing to be under the influence of alcohol." 54.-60. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 61. Accepted and incorporated as to specific references to videotapes and their confiscation. But several more general guidelines applied and were adequate. 62.-64. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. The guidelines were adequate to inform the Respondent as to what he should have done in this case. (Even without knowing the specifics of the guidelines and rules, Nurmela knew from intuition that the Respondent had violated them. Even Pomerantzeff testified that, from her understanding, never having seen it herself, the videotape was beyond the limits of what she would have allowed students to show and see.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that he testified student and parent reaction was the sole basis for determining teacher effectiveness. (It can be one factor.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that they made that generalization. 68-70. Accepted and subordinate to facts found. 71.-72. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected that they were instructed that signing any petition for the Respondent could result in discipline, only signing one that Shorter had not pre-approved, in accordance with school policy. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not established by the evidence. 76.-77. Accepted but hearsay that cannot support findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney 301 Fourth Street S.W. Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Mishele B. Schutz, Esquire 535 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Howard Hinesley Superintendent of Schools School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street S.W. Largo, Florida 34640-3536 Honorable Doug Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 600100 which certifies Respondent in the area of elementary education. This certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher at North County Elementary School (NCES), one of the schools in the Dade County School District. At the time of the formal hearing, respondent was employed as a classroom teacher at Liberty City Elementary, another of the schools in the Dade County School District. Respondent is an experienced school teacher who was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, assigned to teach a sixth grade alternative education class at NCES. Wanda McMillon is a Paraprofessional I and was assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom on a full-time basis during the 1990-91 school year. There were approximately 15 students assigned to Respondent's class at NCES. Alternate education deals with children who are behavior problems, have attendance problems, or who are recommended by their counselors to attend alternate education for other reasons. Many of these students come from broken families. Students in Respondent's class frequently engaged in inappropriate and unruly behavior. Examples of this misbehavior included students throwing objects, hitting the Respondent, taking the Respondent's property, and running out of the classroom. As the teacher, Respondent is responsible for maintaining discipline in the classroom. The record is clear that discipline was a serious problem in Respondent's classroom. On November 2, 1990, an incident occurred in Respondent's classroom at NCES involving Respondent and Arthur Brown, a student who had been assigned to Respondent's alternative education class because he was a behavioral problem. Arthur was out of his seat without permission. Arthur did not obey the Respondent's instructions to sit down. Respondent thereafter touched Arthur Brown's shoulder in an attempt to get him to take his seat. Arthur pulled away from Respondent and picked up a plastic chair with metal legs. Arthur held this chair above his head and attempted to hit Respondent with the chair. Respondent grabbed the legs of the chair and a brief struggle for the chair ensued. Respondent took the chair away from Arthur Brown. During the struggle for the chair, Arthur was struck in the forehead by the plastic portion of the chair, but he suffered no meaningful injury. Respondent did not use excessive force in dealing with Arthur. Respondent's defensive reaction to this situation was reasonable and necessary to protect himself and possibly others from this student. 1/ On a date during the 1990-91 school year prior to November 2, 1990 2/, an incident occurred in Respondent's classroom involving Respondent and Vincent Bennett, a disruptive student who had been assigned to Respondent's alternative education class. Vincent was playing near the classroom door when Respondent told him to sit down. When Vincent failed to sit down, Respondent seized Vincent's arm and tried to redirect the student. Vincent began to struggle with Respondent and broke free of his grasp. Vincent began to run around Respondent flailing his arms and hitting Respondent. Respondent reacted by striking Vincent in the upper chest with the back of his hand. Vincent fell to the ground and began to cry. Although Vincent became mad as a result of that incident, there was no evidence that Vincent was injured by Respondent. It is concluded that Respondent's reaction to the attack by Vincent was reasonable and that Respondent did not use excessive force in responding to that situation. 3/ There was testimony that Respondent grabbed Vincent and Arthur by the arm on other occasions. There was, however, no showing that Respondent used excessive force in dealing with Vincent or Arthur on these other occasions or that he engaged in unacceptable conduct. There was testimony that Respondent grabbed or pushed other students in the class, including Lasavo Darkins, Marcus Hollis, Elijah Wadley, and Latraveus Dardy. The evidence established that Respondent's contact with these students occurred while the students were misbehaving and was an attempt to redirect the students. The testimony pertaining to these incidents otherwise lacks factual detail and does not establish that excessive force was used by Respondent. This vague testimony is insufficient to base a finding of wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. There was no evidence that Respondent's method of dealing with these students constituted professional misconduct. There was conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent improperly used profanity in front of the students in his classroom. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, it is found that Respondent did not address his students in profane terms and that he did not otherwise improperly use profanity in front of the students in his classroom. On February 20, 1991, Respondent received a written reprimand from Ruthann Marleaux, the principal of NCES, which provided, in part, as follows: You are hereby officially reprimanded for the following violations of your professional contract responsibilities: Failure to: "Maintain a safe and orderly learning environment...that disruptive behavior be dealt with safely, fairly, consistently and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. Respondent received an annual evaluation of "unacceptable" from his principal for the 1990-91 school year. Respondent testified that this evaluation was subsequently changed to acceptable. Although the subsequent evaluation was not introduced into evidence, the testimony of Respondent is accepted since his testimony is consistent with his continued employment as a teacher in the public schools of Dade County, Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2002.
