The Issue The main issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher has given the district just cause to terminate his employment contract for incompetency, and, alternatively, whether the teacher failed to correct performance deficiencies during a 90-day probationary period, which would constitute separate grounds for dismissal if proven true.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all relevant times, Respondent Christopher Marshall ("Marshall") was employed as a math teacher in the Broward County school district, a position which he had held for some 15 years before this proceeding began. During that period, Marshall taught at a few different schools, the latest being McArthur High, where he worked for several years up to and including the 2013-14 school year. Marshall's teaching career, sad to say, has been mediocre. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, at least as early as 2002, Marshall was identified by administrators and colleagues as a teacher of marginal ability. More than once over the years Marshall was placed on performance probation due to concerns about his unsatisfactory performance. Rather than terminate Marshall's employment, however, the district transferred Marshall from school to school, and somehow he managed to muddle through, doing enough to be rated "satisfactory" and avoid getting the sack. One of Marshall's defining characteristics has been the remarkably high percentages of Fs and Ds that his students consistently have earned, year in and year out. Frequently more than half of his students took home final grades lower than a C——and sometimes quite a bit more than 50 percent fell into this category. This was true across grade levels (Marshall taught grades nine through 12) and without regard to degrees of subject-matter difficulty (Marshall taught advanced as well as basic classes; he was not assigned only struggling students). It was not uncommon for Marshall to fail between one-quarter and one-third of his students. In the 2013-14 school year, for example, 31 percent of Marshall's Liberal Arts Math 2 students received a failing grade; 25 percent of his Math College Readiness students failed; and ten percent of his Algebra 2 students got Fs. This was consistent with a decade-long pattern. Needless to say, a teacher whose students in large numbers routinely get Ds or worse in his classes attracts attention from students, colleagues, parents, and administrators. In Marshall's case, students complained to other teachers——and to their parents. Parents, of course, complained to administrators and demanded that their children be placed in other classes. Often, to placate angry parents, Marshall's students were transferred, with the result that Marshall's classes were small, and other math teachers had to squeeze in additional students. Teachers complained about this. It must be acknowledged that poor grades are not necessarily a reflection of the teacher's ability or lack thereof. Certainly, as a general rule, each student bears substantial responsibility for his or her own grade, and no one should expect a teacher simply to hand out high marks that are unmerited and unearned. Sometimes, to be sure, an F or a D is as richly deserved as an A or a B. That said, the sheer persistence of Marshall's grade distribution under different conditions and through changing student populations implies that something other than resistance or indifference to learning, poor study habits, or lack of intellectual ability must be at work. The undersigned has combed the record for an explanation of his students' poor grades that might exonerate Marshall but can find none. There is no persuasive evidence, for example, that Marshall is a demanding teacher who sets the bar high for his students, administering tough but fair tests that are difficult for the unmotivated or unprepared to pass. To the contrary, Marshall had his students spend time on rote exercises, such as copying definitions and formulas from the textbook, which have little educational value. Nor did Marshall's students tend to excel in their next math classes. Rather, after being taught by Marshall, his students often had difficulty in their subsequent courses because they had not learned the prerequisite material. For years, administrators have tried to cajole or compel Marshall to reduce the number of students receiving Fs and Ds in his classes, not by the expedient of grade inflation, but by implementing different pedagogical techniques and strategies. Marshall, however, has ignored these importunings and directives, and nothing has changed. Marshall's apparent imperviousness to criticism has been an ongoing source of frustration to his colleagues and administrators. Marshall considers himself to be an "awesome" teacher, and therefore he concludes that anyone who has a different opinion——which unfortunately seems to be nearly everyone with whom he has worked——is either mistaken, lying, or treating him unfairly. This has led Marshall to file numerous grievances and complaints against his supervisors, none of which has been successful. He is not, however, confrontational, discourteous, or abusive in his workplace relationships. Rather, Marshall engages in passive-aggressive behavior. Faced with a demand or a directive, Marshall does not argue (although he might politely disagree); he simply does not comply. The greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned to find that the bad grades Marshall's students consistently have received are a symptom of Marshall's inability to teach. Although he knows his subject, Marshall lacks the skills necessary to impart his knowledge to his students, who consequently do not learn math in his classes. It is not that Marshall is deliberately trying not to succeed. He is not being insubordinate in this regard. He is simply not suited to the job of teaching high school math. In 2011, following a legislative directive then recently enacted, the school district adopted a teacher evaluation system known as the Broward Instructional Development and Growth Evaluation System ("BrIDGES"), which is based on Dr. Robert J. Marzano's strategies for educational effectiveness. When rating a teacher's classroom performance using BrIDGES, an evaluator inputs his or her observations into a database by filling out an electronic "iObservation" form. The iObservation tool contains 60 "elements," each of which represents a discrete strategy, action, or skill that a teacher might employ as appropriate: e.g., "Using Academic Games," "Identifying Critical Information," and "Displaying Objectivity and Control." The elements are organized under four separate "domains" as follows: Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors (Elements 1-41) Domain 2: Planning and Preparing (Elements 42-49) Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching (Elements 50-54) Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism (Elements 55-60). The 41 elements of Domain 1 are further subdivided into nine Design Questions, DQ1 through DQ9. On October 8, 2013, the school district and the Broward Teachers Union entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth their agreements regarding the use of BrIDGES to evaluate teachers for 2013-14. Pursuant to the MOU, each classroom teacher was to receive at least three observations, including one formal (30 or more minutes), one informal (15-25 minutes), and one snapshot or walkthrough (3-10 minutes) observation. During an observation, the subject teacher receives a "datamark" (prescribed number of points) for each element that the evaluator chooses to rate. For 2013-14, the datamarks were as follows: Innovating (Highly Effective), 4 points; Applying (Effective), 3 points; Developing (Effective), 2.5 points; Beginning (Needs Improvement), 2 points; and Not Using (Unsatisfactory), 1 point. Each teacher was to receive at least 45 datamarks, comprising at least 25 datamarks in Domain 1 and 10 within Domains 2, 3, and/or 4. A weighted average of the datamarks assigned to a teacher's performance as recorded on the iObservation forms became the teacher's Instructional Practice Score ("IPS"). The IPS was equal to 0.68X plus 0.32Y, where X was the average of the teacher's Domain 1 datamarks and Y was the average of the teacher's datamarks for Domains 2, 3, and 4 combined. The IPS was reported as a number having three decimal digits, to the thousandths place. This created a false precision, for the calculated result could not possibly have been more precise than the number having the least number of significant figures in the equation, which would always be a one-digit integer (unless the teacher happened to receive strait 2.5s——possible, but unlikely, and not the case here). In other words, the numbers to the right of the decimal point in the teacher's IPS were mathematically insignificant, spurious digits, because the original data could not support a measurement beyond the precision of one significant figure. The IPS should have been (but was not) rounded to a single-digit integer to avoid reporting insignificant digits. For 2013-14, the BrIDGES Overall Evaluation Score equaled the sum of the teacher's IPS (weighted as 49%), Deliberate Practice score (weighted as 1.0%), and Student Growth score (weighted as 50%). Teachers at McArthur High (including Marshall) for whom no individual student data were available automatically received a Student Growth score of 3.0 for that school year, and all teachers (including Marshall) who completed a self-assessment received a Deliberate Practice score of 3.0. The Overall Evaluation Scale for 2013-14 was Highly Effective (3.450-4.000), Effective (2.500-3.449), Needs Improvement (2.000-2.499), and Unsatisfactory (1.000-1.999). As of February 4, 2014, Marshall had received eight observations: three formals, three informals, and two walkthroughs. He had received 56 datamarks in Domain 1 and five datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4. His weighted IPS, to that date, was 2.145 (but this computed score was precise to no more than one significant figure and therefore should be understood as a 2 after rounding off the spurious digits), or Needs Improvement. Pursuant to the MOU, once a teacher receives an average IPS of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory among other conditions that Marshall had met as of February 4, 2014, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") may be written for that teacher. Accordingly, in early February 2014, a PDP was written for Marshall. As well, on February 12, 2014, the principal of McArthur High placed Marshall on performance probation for 90 calendar days, delivering to Marshall a notice of "less than effective performance" ostensibly pursuant to section 1012.34(4), Florida Statutes. The statute, however, authorizes 90-day performance probation only for a teacher whose performance is unsatisfactory, and Marshall's performance was not unsatisfactory; it was Needs Improvement. Needs Improvement is, to be sure, less than Effective performance, but it is better than Unsatisfactory. Indeed, none of the levels of performance besides Unsatisfactory denotes unsatisfactory performance and thus, logically, all teachers rated Highly Effective, Effective, or Needs Improvement fall within the range of satisfactory performance. In any event, between February 28 and May 7, 2014, Marshall received 12 more observations, which added 75 datamarks to his total in Domain 1 (making 131 in all) and six additional datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4 (for a grand total of 11). The iObservation forms for Marshall's last six observations, incidentally, are not in evidence. As of May 7, 2014, Marshall's IPS was 1.963. This number, by itself, would be Unsatisfactory on the Overall Evaluation Scale. Given, however, that the initial numerical data was captured (mostly) in single-digit integers, together with a handful of 2.5s, the decimal places are spurious in this result; there is no meaningful distinction between "1.963" (which is a textbook example of false precision) and "2" (which is what 1.963 should be rounded up to, to avoid the fallacy of overprecision). Thus, if the insignificant figures are ignored, Marshall's IPS, by itself, is actually Needs Improvement. But more important, Marshall's IPS was not his Overall Evaluation Score, and therefore it is improper and unfair to deem his performance Unsatisfactory on the Overall Performance Scale based on an IPS of 1.963 as the School Board wants to do. Marshall's Overall Evaluation Score, as calculated by the School Board, was 2.492 — Needs Improvement.1/ Again, Needs Improvement is less than Effective and clearly not ideal, but it is not Unsatisfactory. To the contrary, Needs Improvement is one of the levels of satisfactory performance. Going a step farther, if Marshall's IPS were rounded to 2, as it should be to eliminate the false precision, and his Overall Evaluation Score recalculated absent the spurious decimals, then his final score would be 2.51, which in turn should be rounded to 3 to avoid overprecision, but which equals Effective performance regardless. The point is, based on a final score of 2.492, Marshall's overall performance can as correctly be deemed Effective as Needs Improvement, for there is no real difference between 2.492 and 3 based on the original data used to make these calculations.2/ (To repeat for emphasis, computations cannot make the original data more precise.3/) Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Marshall is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2).4/ The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Marshall is guilty of incompetency,5/ which is just cause for dismissal from employment. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Marshall's performance as measured in accordance with the BrIDGES evaluation system was not Unsatisfactory during the 2013-14 school year. Therefore, the evidence does not support the termination of Marshall's employment contract pursuant to section 1012.34(4). The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated section 1012.53, apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal. The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated School Board Rule 4008(B), apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Marshall from his employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public Schools for the just cause of incompetency as a result of inefficiency. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2016, 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 24th day of March, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that he used inappropriate language when talking to students, in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Woodard has worked in the Duval County public school system since 2002. There was no evidence presented of any prior incidents of inappropriate behavior, or of discipline being imposed upon Woodard by the School Board. During the 2014-2015 school year, Woodard was employed by Petitioner as an In-School Suspension (“ISSP”) teacher at Northwestern. The ISSP teacher is an instructional and leadership position, and the ISSP teacher is supposed to set an example for students and help them modify their behavior. The ISSP class was created to allow students who engage in disciplinary misconduct to remain in school rather than being removed from the classroom environment. The referral of students to ISSP can come from administrators, teachers, or any other employee who observes student misconduct. Although Woodard taught the ISSP class, he did not discipline students or assign them to ISSP, and he did not give students grades. During the 2014-2015 school year at Northwestern, Woodard was assigned to the gym in the mornings, where sixth- graders were directed to go after eating breakfast in the cafeteria, to wait for their teachers to pick them up and take them to class. On January 23, 2014, the Duval County School District’s (“District”) Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation of allegations that Woodard used inappropriate communications with and/or in the presence of students. The investigation, which was conducted by Investigator Reginald Johnson in the District’s Office of Professional Standards, sustained the allegations. On September 29, 2015, Woodard received a Step III Progressive Discipline – Reprimand and Suspension Without Pay (Revised 9/29/15) for conduct the District alleged violated the Florida Code of Ethics, rules 6A-10.080(2) and 6A-10.080(3) and the Principles of Professional Conduct, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). The Step III Progressive Discipline alleged that Woodard used the term D.A.N. or DAN when talking to or referring to students at Northwestern, which the District alleged was an acronym for “dumb ass niggers.” In his defense, Woodard testified that in mentoring students, he shared stories from his childhood and his own life in order to be more relatable to students. According to Woodard, he used the story of his childhood friend Dan to impress upon students that it is not where you start, it is where you end up. Woodard’s friend Dan used to skip school, get to school late, fight, and disrespect authority, and Woodard urged his students not to be a Dan. As discussed below, Woodard’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Student D.M. testified that Woodard called students D.A.N.s in the gym and in ISSP class when the students were either acting up or in trouble. D.M. also testified Woodard wrote the word D.A.N. on the board in ISSP class with periods in the word, and the word stayed on the board in ISSP class. D.M. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. Student H.N.J. was in ISSP class with about seven other students when Woodard told them that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. said Woodard called students D.A.N.s when they were acting up and disrespectful, and that Woodard gave two meanings of the word D.A.N.-–“dumb and nobody” and “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. does not remember Woodard relating a story about a friend named Dan. Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward students made H.N.J. feel put down and “sad and mad at the same time,” and the fact that Woodard was a teacher made this worse. Student B.S. stated Woodard yelled at students and called them D.A.N.s in the gym whenever they were talking loud or would not listen. B.S. does not recall Woodard telling a story about a friend named Dan. B.S. learned that D.A.N. means “dumb ass niggers” from A.W., another student. Woodard’s reference to students as D.A.N.s made B.S. feel “sorry and mad,” and she began crying on the witness stand. Student K.H. testified that Woodard called her a D.A.N. when she stepped out of line in the gym and that he called other students D.A.N.s when they were misbehaving, fighting, or being loud. K.H.’s friend told her that D.A.N. means “dumb ass nigger.” K.H. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. K.H. and her brother, student D.H., complained to their mother about Woodard calling students D.A.N.s. The mother of K.H. and D.H. contacted Northwestern and later the media after the school did not do anything about the complaint. Woodard’s use of the term D.A.N. made K.H. “feel disrespected and low life because it’s not supposed to be used towards children” and because Woodard is a teacher and the same race as K.H. During the 2014-2015 school year, student D.H., was in the seventh grade at Northwestern. D.H. heard his friends in math class calling each other D.A.N.s. So he asked one of his friends what D.A.N. meant. D.H.’s friend (a student named “J”) told D.H. that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers” and that Woodard called kids that word. D.H. was bothered that someone of his own race was calling him that, and also that it came from a teacher. The students’ descriptions of Woodard’s comments and behavior were fairly consistent. The things they reported hearing and observing were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The testimony of H.N.J. was particularly persuasive and clearly established that Woodard intended to use the term D.A.N. as a derogatory epithet: either “dumb and nobody”; or “dumb ass niggers.” Significantly, none of the students who appeared at hearing would have had a motive to testify falsely. As noted, Woodard did not assign grades to any of these students or assign them to ISSP, so none would have had an axe to grind with Woodard. The testimony of the students is credible. Teacher Linda Raggins testified that she heard Woodard tell students in the gym “to not act like Dan.” Toward the end of the school year, Raggins asked Woodard “who is Dan?” Woodard gave Raggins two explanations, the first of which she did not recall. The second explanation Woodard gave Raggins was that “some people use Dan to mean dumb ass niggers, but that’s not how I – that’s not what I’m talking about.” Raggins did not recall Woodard providing any other meaning for the word D.A.N. Raggins is a union representative and first agreed to provide a written statement, but then declined to provide a statement on the advice of counsel. Raggins did not tell Investigator Johnson that Woodard told a story about someone named Dan. Former teacher Jason Ludban heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. a handful of times. Ludban said that Woodard used the term D.A.N. “openly and loudly for all to hear,” which made Ludban believe it was acceptable. Ludban learned from a student that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” Ludban never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. If Ludban believed that Woodard was using the term D.A.N. to mean “dumb ass niggers,” Ludban would have had a duty to report it. Woodard gave Investigator Johnson the names of three additional student witnesses, whom Johnson interviewed. One of the students confirmed that Woodard wrote the word “D.A.N.” with periods on the board in ISSP class. Two of the students told Johnson that Woodard told them the story of a friend named Dan, but this occurred about two weeks prior to the date Johnson interviewed them, after the allegations were reported in the media and when Woodard was already facing discipline. Despite Woodard’s claim that Dan was a real person, Investigator Johnson does not recall Woodard telling him the last name of Dan or giving him any contact information for “Dan.” Johnson would have interviewed Dan if Woodard had provided that information. Woodard also did not provide Investigator Johnson with the names of any adults at Northwestern to whom Woodard told the Dan story. None of the witnesses Investigator Johnson interviewed--students or adults-- stated that Woodard told them a story about a friend named Dan. It is within management’s discretion to skip a step of progressive discipline if the conduct is severe. Assistant Superintendent Sonita Young recommended Step III discipline against Woodard because he was in a position of authority and his role was to provide support to students in terms of behavior modification, but Woodard used derogatory language that was offensive toward students. In deciding whether discipline is warranted, the District looks at the totality of the circumstances, including the number of times an incident occurred, how many witnesses there were to the incident, the severity of the incident, whether harm occurred to the child’s physical or mental well-being, whether the employee has been previously disciplined for the same conduct, and whether the employee acknowledged his behavior and is willing to modify his behavior. According to Assistant Superintendent Young, the factors supporting the Step III discipline were that Woodard said the derogatory word D.A.N. to multiple students, the students were middle school students, the student population was fragile and of very low socioeconomic status, and the conduct was repeated over a period of time rather than a singular incident. The fact that this language was used by a teacher, a person in a position of authority whom students have the right to feel “safe” around, were additional factors supporting the discipline. Young believes that Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward or around students showed poor judgment and was damaging to them. Respondent called various character and fact witnesses (Jasmine Daniels, Tiffany Thomas, Tabitha Johnson, Pastor Fredrick Newbill, Niger Lambey, Ricky Stanford, and Daniel Drayton) who testified that Woodard told the story of his friend Dan at a church youth group, in his sermons, or that they knew the story from growing up with Woodard. However, none of the witnesses testified that they heard Woodard tell the Dan story to District students or in a District classroom. Pastor Newbill testified that in his community, D.A.N. has been used as a racial epithet for “dumb ass niggers” for at least the last 25 years. Dr. Arvin Johnson, the former principal of Northwestern, received a complaint about Woodard from a parent in May 2015, near the end of the 2014-2015 school year. Dr. Johnson, who is a friend of Woodard, heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. with students once or twice, but he never heard Woodard tell students a story about a friend named Dan. Although Dr. Johnson has known or worked with Woodard for approximately 12 years, the first time Woodard told Dr. Johnson the story of a friend named Dan was in connection with the parent’s complaint against Woodard in May 2015. Although Woodard has been employed with the District since 2002, he admitted that he did not tell the Dan story to students during the first 12 years of his employment. Woodard did not begin telling the Dan story to District students until the 2014-2015 school year. After not speaking to Daniel Drayton for several years, Woodard called Drayton in 2015 to remind him of the Dan story. Woodard stated that if he knew there was a negative interpretation of D.A.N. he would not have used the term, but his explanation to Ms. Raggins shows that he knew that a racially derogatory meaning of the word D.A.N. existed. Woodard claims that the students lied about him using D.A.N. as an acronym for “dumb ass niggers,” but he could not offer an explanation as to why students, whom he claims “loved” him, and were excited to attend his class, would lie about him. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Woodard used the term D.A.N. in the presence of his ISSP students as a derogatory racial epithet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its suspension of the employment of Ernest Woodard and, instead, issuing a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 30th day of November, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's professional service contract should be re-newed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Dade County School Board (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. At all times material hereto, Helen F. Ruby (Respondent) was employed with the Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a professional service contract (PSC). Respondent has been employed with Petitioner as a PSC teacher for approximately 15 years. Respondent is a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). As a member of UTD, Respondent is bound by all the provisions of the labor contract between Petitioner and UTD. The UTD contract requires the utilization of the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) to evaluate the performance of teachers. All teachers employed by the Petitioner are evaluated pursuant to the TADS, which is an objective instrument used to observe minimal teaching behaviors. The TADS instrument evaluates teacher classroom performance in six categories which are preparation and planning; knowledge of subject matter; classroom management; techniques of instruction; teacher-student relationships; and assessment techniques. A seventh category, referred to as professional responsibility, reflects the duties and responsibilities of a teacher in complying with the Petitioner's rules, contractual provisions, statutory regulations, site directives, and all policies and procedures relating to record-keeping and attendance. This system of evaluation records deficiencies observed during the observation period and provides the prescription for performance improvement. At all times material hereto, the document used to evaluate Respondent's performance was the TADS document, more specifically, TADS, Classroom Assessment Instrument (CAI). The TADS CAI contained the six categories, not the seventh, in evaluating Respondent's performance. 1995-96 School Year During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent was assigned to John F. Kennedy Middle School (JFK) to teach Language Arts at the seventh grade level. On November 13, 1995, Respondent was formally observed by JFK's Assistant Principal. Respondent was found unacceptable in classroom management. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management. The prescription, which includes the prescriptive activities and a date certain for completion or submission of the prescriptive activities, is recorded on the TADS Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement (ROD). After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities on the ROD. Respondent was notified, among other things, that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document; but Respondent did not provide a response on the TADS document to the noted deficiencies. On December 15, 1995, a mid-year Conference-for-the- Record (CFR) was held. Present at the mid-year CFR were the Principal, Assistant Principal, Respondent, and a UTD representative. During the mid-year CFR, Respondent's prescription status was addressed, due to her unsatisfactory performance in classroom management, and her future employment status with Petitioner. Respondent was provided an opportunity to address the deficiencies and concerns noted in the mid-year CFR; however, Respondent did not provide a response. A written summary of the mid-year CFR, dated January 8, 1996, was prepared by the Principal. Respondent received a copy of the summary. On March 11, 1996, Respondent was formally observed by the Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified, among other things, that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. At times during the post-observation conference, Respondent was argumentative and resistant. On March 21, 1996, a CFR was held. Present at the CFR were the Principal, an Assistant Principal, Respondent, and two UTD representatives. During the CFR, Respondent's unacceptable performance in the classroom, resulting from the unacceptable observations of November 13, 1995, and March 11, 1996, was discussed. Respondent was notified that a second unacceptable consecutive summative would result in an external review and that a recommendation to not renew her professional service contract may be made. A written summary of the CFR, dated March 22, 1996, was prepared by the Principal. A copy of the CFR summary was provided to Respondent. The evidence is insufficient to conclude that a summative observation form was provided to Respondent or Respondent’s UTD representatives. By letter dated March 22, 1996, the Petitioner’s Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent, among other things, that she was being charged with unsatisfactory performance in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Further, Respondent was notified that, if her performance deficiencies were not corrected during the 1996-97 school year, her employment with the Petitioner may be terminated; and that the assessment of her performance would continue throughout the remainder of the school year. By letter dated March 28, 1996, the Petitioner’s Associate Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent, among other things, that she had not been recommended for renewal of her PSC and that the Petitioner had acted on the recommendation to not renew her PSC. Further, Respondent was notified, among other things, that her performance would continue to be assessed throughout the 1995-96 and 1996-97 contract school years; and that, unless her performance deficiencies were remediated, her employment with the Petitioner would terminate at the close of the 1996-97 contract school year, with her last day of employment being June 14, 1997. On April 29, 1996, Respondent was formally observed by JFK's Assistant Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management and techniques of instruction, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified, among other things, that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. As a result of Respondent receiving three unacceptable observations during the 1995-96 school year, JFK’s Principal requested an external review of Respondent’s classroom performance. An external review is a formal observation which requires an on-site administrator and an off-site region or district office administrator to be observers, a two-on-one observation. The observers are both in the teacher’s classroom at the same time; they observe the same lesson plan; and they rate the TADS CAI items independently, using their own judgment. After the two observers independently assess the teacher’s classroom performance, they meet and collaboratively prepare a prescriptive record of observed deficiencies which includes their observations substantiating the deficiencies. The prescription is recorded on the ROD. Written notice must be provided to the teacher that an external review will be conducted. The CFR summary dated March 22, 1996, provided Respondent with notice that an external review would be conducted if a condition precedent occurred, which was the occurrence of a second unacceptable consecutive summative. There is no dispute that the formal observations conducted on November 13, 1995, and March 11, 1996, comprise the first two consecutive TADS CAI observations; and that the formal observations conducted on March 11, 1996, and April 29, 1996, comprise the second two consecutive TADS CAI observations. There is disagreement as to whether the observations comprise the first unacceptable consecutive summative and the second unacceptable consecutive summative, respectively; however, a finding is so made and, therefore, the condition precedent was satisfied. Moreover, a finding is made that the mid-year CFR summary dated March 22, 1996, provided Respondent notice of the external review. On May 30, 1996, an external review of Respondent’s classroom performance was conducted by JFK's Assistant Principal (the on-site administrator) and by the Instructional Supervisor of the Division of Language Arts and Reading (the off-site administrator). Both observers rated Respondent’s classroom performance on the TADS CAI as unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Each observer rated Respondent independently on the TADS CAI. The two observers did not discuss their ratings of Respondent prior to completing the TADS CAI rating. After performing their independent ratings, the two observers discussed Respondent’s performance. Neither observer changed their ratings during or after the discussion. As a result of Respondent receiving an unacceptable external review, the two observers discussed and developed prescriptive activities to assist Respondent to overcome her deficiencies, which were recorded on the ROD. After an external review, the on-site observer has the responsibility of conducting the post-observation conference and preparing and issuing the prescription. In accordance therewith, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent and discussed the noted-deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. On June 14, 1996, Respondent was placed on prescription in the category of professional responsibility, the seventh category of TADS, by the Principal. Respondent was given prescriptive activities to assist her to overcome her deficiencies in professional responsibility, which were recorded on the ROD. The Principal held a conference with Respondent to discuss the prescription. Respondent’s annual evaluation was conducted on June 14, 1996. During the 1995-96 school year, the Principal and her staff provided Respondent with assistance to overcome the noted deficiencies. However, Respondent’s classroom performance remained unacceptable. Respondent’s overall performance was found unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable categories. Respondent received an overall unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1995-96 school year. 1996-97 School Year JFK had a new principal for the 1996-97 school year. The Principal was informed as to Respondent’s prescription status. The Principal met with Respondent, reviewed the prescription with her, and offered to assist Respondent with the prescriptive activities. Respondent indicated to the Principal that she needed no assistance. By memorandum dated September 24, 1996, the Principal notified Respondent that, pursuant to the prescription, Respondent had failed to submit the prescriptive activities which were due on September 20, 1996, and that, therefore, she was in noncompliance with the prescription. Respondent was also notified that, if she failed to submit the prescriptive activities by September 25, 1996, the professional responsibility (category seven) prescription would be extended for noncompliance. Finally, the Principal provided Respondent duplicates of the June 14, 1996, prescription and TADS documents. Respondent failed to complete the prescriptive activities by September 25, 1996. On October 3, 1996, a CFR was held. Present at the CFR were the Principal, the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and the UTD steward. During the CFR, Respondent’s prescriptive status, noncompliance with the prescription and administrative directives, and future employment status with Petitioner were discussed. The June 14, 1996, prescription was extended to November 4, 1996, and Respondent was advised that her failure to complete the prescriptive activities by the prescribed deadline would be considered insubordination. A written summary of the CFR was prepared by the Principal. Respondent was provided a copy of the summary. On October 8, 1996, approximately one week after the CFR, Respondent was formally observed by the Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. On October 14, 1996, a memorandum from the Principal was submitted to Respondent which notified Respondent that she had failed to submit all prescriptive activities which were due on October 4, 1996, in accordance with the prescription dated June 6, 1996. Respondent was also notified that the required prescriptive activities must be submitted by October 15, 1996; and that, if they were not, the prescription of June 6, 1996, would be extended due to noncompliance. On December 16, 1996, a mid-year CFR was held. Present at the mid-year CFR were the Principal, the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and the UTD steward. During the mid-year CFR, Respondent’s noncompliance with school site directives, noncompliance with Petitioner’s rules, prescriptive status, and future employment status with Petitioner were discussed. Additionally, the assistance provided Respondent to assist her in improving her classroom performance was reviewed. During the mid-year CFR, Respondent was advised that she was in her second year of unacceptable performance status and that she had failed to remediate her noted deficiencies. She was also advised that, if she failed to remediate the noted- deficiencies by the end of the 1996-97 school year, a recommendation would be made for the non-renewal of her PSC, which would be reported to the Florida Department of Education. Additionally, during the mid-year CFR, Respondent was advised that to remediate the noted deficiencies she must receive two consecutive acceptable summative decisions, which would require three formal observations. Respondent was further advised that, if she received two consecutive unacceptable summatives or four formal observations with no pattern of two consecutive acceptable or unacceptable summatives, an external review would be conducted. A written summary of the mid-year CFR was prepared by the Principal. Respondent received a copy of the summary. On February 6, 1997, Respondent was formally observed by the Assistant Principal. Respondent was found unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. As a result, Respondent was placed on prescription and prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management and techniques of instruction, which were recorded on the ROD. Respondent was required to complete the prescriptive activities by February 26, 1997. After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal conducted a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. Respondent failed to complete the prescriptive activities by February 26, 1997. By memorandum dated March 4, 1997, the Assistant Principal notified Respondent, among other things, that she was in noncompliance with the prescription because of her failure to complete the prescriptive activities by February 26, 1997; and that she had until March 5, 1997, to submit the prescriptive activities. On February 24, 1996, a CFR was held. Present at the CFR were the Principal, the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and a UTD steward. During the CFR, among other things, Respondent’s prescriptive status, unacceptable classroom performance, and noncompliance with school site directives were discussed. Respondent was advised that she had not remediated her deficiencies and was notified that, therefore, an external review was requested. Respondent was also notified that, if she did not remediate the noted-deficiencies, a recommendation would be made to terminate her employment with the Petitioner and not renew her PSC. A written request for an external review was made by the Principal. Respondent received a copy of the request. A written summary of the CFR was prepared by the Principal. A copy of the CFR summary was provided to Respondent, who was informed that she could provide a written response to the summary. Although not required for PSC teachers, an interim evaluation is used to inform PSC teachers on prescription of the latest summative decision. Also, the interim evaluation notifies the PSC teacher that he/she may be in jeopardy of losing their PSC at the end of the school year. On February 27, 1997, Respondent received an interim evaluation. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. The overall unacceptable interim evaluation was based on the compilation of the unacceptable formal observations of October 8, 1996, and February 6, 1997. On March 7, 1977, Respondent was formally observed by JFK's Assistant Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. As a result, Respondent was placed on prescription and prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. The Assistant Principal offered to provide any assistance that Respondent requested to assist her to improve her performance. The date for completion of the prescriptive activities was March 27, 1997. Respondent failed to timely complete the prescription, submitting the prescriptive activities on April 9, 1997. By letter dated March 10, 1997, the Petitioner’s Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent, among other things, that the deficiencies noted in Respondent’s performance in the 1995-96 school year had not been corrected, that he would be recommending to the Petitioner that Respondent’s PSC not be re-issued, and that the Petitioner would act on his recommendation on March 19, 1997. Further, Respondent was notified that her performance would continue to be assessed for the remainder of her contract. On March 19, 1997, the Petitioner acted on the Superintendent’s recommendation. The Petitioner decided not to renew Respondent’s PSC and not to reappoint Respondent to a teaching position. On April 16, 1997, an external review of Respondent’s classroom performance was conducted by JFK's Principal (the on- site administrator) and by the Instructional Supervisor of the Division of Language Arts and Reading (the off-site administrator). Both observers rated Respondent’s classroom performance on the TADS CAI as unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Each observer rated Respondent independently on the TADS CAI. The two observers discussed and developed prescriptive activities to assist Respondent to overcome her deficiencies, which were recorded on the ROD. The two observers collaboratively prepared the prescriptive record of observed deficiencies and recorded the prescription on the ROD. After the external review, the Principal held a post- observation conference with Respondent. The Principal discussed the noted deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Subsequent to the post-observation conference, the Principal assisted and assigned school staff to assist Respondent to improve her classroom performance and with her prescriptive activities. The date for completion of the prescriptive activities was May 9, 1997. Respondent completed the prescriptive activities on May 8 and 9, 1997. On May 29, 1997, an external review of Respondent's classroom performance was conducted by JFK's Assistant Principal (the on-site administrator) and by the Petitioner's Regional Director (the off-site administrator). Both observers rated Respondent’s classroom performance on the TADS CAI as unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Each observer rated Respondent independently on the TADS CAI. The two observers discussed and developed prescriptive activities to assist Respondent to overcome her deficiencies, which were recorded on the ROD. The two observers collaboratively prepared the prescriptive record of observed deficiencies and recorded the prescription on the ROD. After the external review, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. The Assistant Principal discussed the noted deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Subsequent to the post-observation conference, the Principal again assisted and assigned school staff to assist Respondent to improve her classroom performance and her prescriptive activities. The date for completion of the prescriptive activities was June 12, 1997. Respondent failed to timely complete the prescriptive activities, submitting them on June 13, 1997. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent failed to remediate the noted deficiencies. Respondent’s annual evaluation was conducted on June 11, 1997. Respondent’s overall performance was found to be unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable categories. Respondent received an overall unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1996-97 school year. By letter dated July 15, 1997, the Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards notified Respondent, among other things, that her performance assessment record for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years had been transmitted to the Florida Department of Education. Respondent was further informed that her performance assessment record was transferred due to Respondent receiving two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations and that she was being provided written notice that her employment with Petitioner was being terminated, not being renewed, or that the Petitioner intended to terminate, or not renew, her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order: Not renewing the professional service contract of Helen F. Ruby. Dismissing Helen F. Ruby from employment with the School Board of Dade County. Denying backpay to Helen F. Ruby. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Twila Hargrove Payne, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies, thereby justifying termination of her employment as a teacher pursuant to section 1012.34; and (2) whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is 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 Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School District pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been a teacher for approximately 14 years. She began teaching full-time at Gulfstream in the 2004- 2005 school year. During her years at Gulfstream, she taught fifth, third, and second grades, and in the 2010-2011 school year she was a co-teacher assigned to assist other teachers in instructing their students. In the 2011-2012 school year, and in the 2012-2013 school year until she was suspended pending the outcome of this proceeding, Respondent was a first grade teacher at Gulfstream. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies and procedures, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Section 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes, mandates that instructional personnel, including classroom teachers, be evaluated for performance at least once a year. Pursuant to section 1012.34(3), the performance evaluation consists of two components: a student performance component and an instructional practice component. The former is based on student scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), or, for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT, on school district assessments as provided in section 1008.22(8). The latter is based on instructional performance indicators that are evaluated based in part on classroom teaching observations. 2011-2012 School Year March 27, 2012 Evaluation In the 2011-2012 school year, approximately 17 students were assigned to Respondent's first grade class. Pursuant to section 1012.34(3)(a)2., in connection with Respondent's annual evaluation, Gulfstream Principal Concepcion Santana conducted a formal observation of Respondent's instructional practices in her classroom on March 27, 2012, as she taught reading/language arts. She observed Respondent for 40 minutes. In evaluating Respondent, Santana followed the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System ("IPEGS"), the system used throughout the Miami-Dade County Public School District to evaluate instructional personnel. IPEGS consists of eight performance standards that constitute the minimum standards a teacher must meet in classroom instruction. These standards are based on the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices adopted by the State Board of Education, as required by section 1012.34(3)(a)2. Four of the IPEGS performance standards are observable during the classroom instruction portion of the evaluation. The other four are "not observable," meaning that they target performance standards that may not necessarily be observed at the time of the classroom instruction performance evaluation.1/ Santana found that Respondent's instructional practices were deficient with respect to the four observable performance standards ("PS"): Knowledge of Learners (PS 2), Instructional Planning (PS 3), Instructional Delivery and Engagement (PS 4), and Learning Environment (PS 8). PS 2 requires the teacher to identify and address the needs of learners by demonstrating respect for individual differences, cultures, backgrounds, and learning styles. Santana observed that Respondent failed to meet PS 2. Specifically, Respondent did not tailor her teaching to address the various learning styles and levels of the students in her classroom; rather, she presented the lesson in a manner that addressed only one learning level, so that some of the students were not learning. PS 3 requires the teacher to use appropriate curricula, instructional strategies, and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals and/or objectives, learning activities, assessment of student learning, and home learning in order to address the diverse needs of students. Respondent failed to meet PS 3. The activities she conducted did not directly conform to her written lesson plan. Specifically, the students were reading a story that was not identified on the lesson plan, and completing workbook pages that were not identified in the lesson plan while skipping others that were identified in the plan. As a result, the focus and purpose of the lesson being taught was not addressed in the lesson plan. Additionally, the lesson plan did not incorporate multiple instructional strategies to meet the learning needs of all of the students. Respondent failed to use a variety of resources and questioning techniques to cater to the range of learning styles and levels of her students and encourage higher level thinking; rather, the instruction presented that day catered to rote learning. PS 4 requires the teacher to promote learning by demonstrating accurate content knowledge and by addressing academic needs through a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and technologies that engage learners. Respondent also failed to meet PS 4. She did not deliver the instruction at a pace appropriate to engage all students. Additionally, her instructional delivery failed to incorporate a range of strategies so that again, not all students were engaged in the lesson. As a result, many students were off-task, and frequent interruptions distracted students who otherwise were on-task. PS 8 requires the teacher to create and maintain a safe learning environment while encouraging fairness, respect, and enthusiasm. Respondent failed to meet PS 8. Santana noted that there appeared to be little evidence of specified classroom procedures that the students understood and followed, so as to create an environment conducive to learning. As a result, students were up out of their seats, asking to go to the restroom, and fiddling with their papers and pencils. Following the observation, Santana documented her observations on a form titled "IPEGS Observation Standards Form- Teacher" ("IPEGS Form"). In compliance with section 1012.34(3)(c), Santana notified Respondent in writing of a scheduled support dialogue meeting. The purpose of the support dialogue meeting was to provide feedback regarding the classroom observation and to discuss strategies and supportive actions that could be provided to Respondent to assist her in remediating her deficiencies and improving her instructional performance. Santana's support dialogue meeting with Respondent took place on March 29, 2012. Present at the meeting, in addition to Santana and Respondent were a UTD representative; a reading coach, Mariela Rapp; and an assistant principal. Santana provided the completed IPEGS form for the March 27 classroom observation to Respondent and discussed with her the observed deficiencies, including instructional strategies that she could have incorporated into the lesson to make it more effective. Rapp and another reading coach, Lynn Carrier, were assigned to provide support to Respondent, and strategies to assist her were devised. Respondent was informed that she had 21 days in which to implement the actions prescribed in the support dialogue meeting, and that at the end of that period, Santana would conduct another classroom observation. April 25, 2012 Evaluation Santana conducted another formal classroom observation of Respondent's teaching on April 25, 2012. This time, she observed Respondent for the entire reading/language arts instructional block lasting two hours. Respondent did not meet PS 2. Again, she did not incorporate instructional strategies to cater to the learning styles and levels of all students in her class. Santana noted that Respondent's instructional performance on this standard was very similar to that she had observed on March 27, 2012. Respondent also failed to meet PS 3. Specifically, she did not incorporate a variety of instructional strategies in her lesson plans to meet the varied needs of the students in the class. As a result, she failed to address the diverse learning needs of her students as required by PS 3. Similarly, Respondent failed to meet PS 4. Once again, Respondent's instructional delivery and engagement techniques failed to keep many students on-task. Santana attributed that to Respondent's failure to adequately pace the lesson or to effectively provide differentiated learning experiences to meet the students' varied learning styles and levels. Santana further noted that the lesson was disorganized. Respondent created differentiated learning centers at which the students would engage in various learning activities; however, she provided no guidance, so the students were unable to effectively engage in the activities for which the centers were prepared. Specifically, at the computer-based learning center, the computers were not prepared for the instructional activity, so time was wasted logging onto the computers; consequently, the students had little time to work on the activity. At another learning center involving a device called "Leap Pad," the books and accompanying cassette cartridges were not grouped together, so the students spent time trying to find the matching books and cartridges and, as a result, wasted what was supposed to be instructional time. Because of these problems, students repeatedly interrupted the teacher-led instructional center, interfering with learning at that center. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Respondent's failure to establish classroom procedures for the various learning centers and her lack of success in redirecting off-task students to reengage in the assigned learning activities created a disruptive environment that did not promote student learning. Following the April 25, 2012, observation, Santana completed another IPEGS Form. Because Respondent showed no improvement from the March 27, 2012, observation, Santana scheduled a conference for the record ("CFR"). A CFR is a formal meeting to discuss a teacher's performance deficiencies and develop a plan to remediate those deficiencies. Respondent was notified in writing of the CFR, which was rescheduled per Respondent's request. Respondent attended the meeting with two UTD representatives; also attending were Rapp and an assistant principal. By written notice and at the CFR, Respondent was informed that she was being placed on 90-day performance probation, pursuant to section 1012.34(4), as of the date of the CFR. An IPEGS Improvement Plan ("IP") was developed to assist Respondent in remediating her instructional performance deficiencies. An IP is a written document that discusses each performance deficiency; identifies specific resources available to assist the teacher in remediating each specific deficiency; sets forth remedial activities specific to each deficiency in which the teacher and assisting persons are to engage; and establishes deadlines for completing the specified activities. In the IP, Respondent and reading coaches Rapp and Carrier were directed to work collaboratively to improve Respondent's instructional techniques and pacing so as to engage all students in the lessons. To this end, Rapp and Carrier were to assist Respondent in developing lesson plans and identifying instructional strategies and activities to meet the learning needs of all of her students. Additionally, Respondent was given the opportunity to engage in collaborative planning with her peer professionals (i.e., other first grade teachers) and with the reading coaches. She also was provided access to a nationally board certified teacher at Gulfstream who assists teachers in improving their teaching performance. The IP further directed the reading coaches and peer professionals to observe Respondent and provide constructive feedback and assistance to Respondent as she attempted to implement instructional techniques and strategies. The IP also identified Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts planners as resources available to assist her in developing appropriate planning objectives, appropriately pacing her lessons to address her students' needs, and developing her lesson plans. As part of the IP, Santana directed Respondent to prepare a written plan addressing how she would tailor her instruction to address student learning styles; use appropriate instructional materials and techniques; and use differentiated instructional groups and learning centers. The written plan was to be submitted to Santana by May 29, 2012. Respondent was further directed to develop lesson plans to improve her instructional delivery strategies. Those plans were to be submitted to the assistant principal. The IP directed Respondent to read the book "How to be an Effective Teacher: The First Five Days of School" and to submit to an assistant principal a reflective summary discussing effective strategies for addressing inappropriate student behavior and managing the learning environment. Respondent also was directed to consult with the reading coaches and peers to develop effective strategies for redirecting inappropriate student behavior. To assist Respondent in implementing her IP, Santana prepared a support calendar that detailed, on a weekly basis for a 21-day period, the activities in which Respondent was to engage. The support calendar specifically identified the reading coaches, peers, and other professionals responsible for working with Respondent as she performed the assigned activities. During the first week of the IP implementation period, Rapp provided assistance to Respondent in planning for the reading/language arts instructional block that would be conducted the following week. Respondent worked with Rapp to interpret current Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading ("FAIR") testing data and use the data to effectively plan for differentiated instruction. Also during the first week, Respondent observed reading/language arts instruction in a peer's classroom and participated in a debriefing session with Rapp and Carrier after the peer teaching observation. The following week, Respondent participated in an activity cycle during which she collaboratively planned with reading coaches Rapp and Carrier; observed peers teaching reading/language arts; observed Rapp modeling effective reading/language arts teaching strategies and techniques; co- taught reading/language arts with Rapp to practice these strategies and techniques; and taught the reading/language arts block while being observed by Rapp and Carrier. This same activity cycle, consisting of collaborative planning,2/ reading coach and peer modeling and observation, co- teaching, and teaching by Respondent, was repeated in the final week of the IP implementation period. Collectively, these activities were designed to assist Respondent in planning for the use of content and instructional techniques and strategies appropriate for her students. They also demonstrated to Respondent how to identify and implement effective instructional techniques and strategies, provided assistance as she learned to implement these techniques and strategies, and afforded the opportunity for Respondent to benefit from constructive feedback regarding her efforts to utilize these techniques and strategies. On May 16 and May 24, 2012, Rapp and Carrier observed Respondent as she taught a reading/arts lesson. In the lesson, she was to employ the instructional techniques and strategies that had been provided and presented to her by the reading coaches, peer professionals, and reference resources during the implementation of her IP. According to Carrier, Respondent did not adhere to the prepared lesson plan and did not incorporate the techniques and strategies that had been provided to her by the reading coaches and peer teachers through her IP.3/ Shortly after Respondent completed the activities set forth in the IP, the 2011-2012 school year ended. Condition of Respondent's Classroom in 2011-2012 At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent had been assigned to a free-standing portable classroom not located in the main building at Gulfstream. In late September or early October 2011, Respondent complained to Santana about the air quality in her classroom—— specifically, that there was musty smell that made it difficult for her to breathe and aggravated her allergies. Santana contacted Mr. Cruz-Munoz of the Miami-Dade Public Schools asbestos management division to inspect Respondent's classroom. Within a couple of days, Cruz-Munoz conducted the inspection and found no visible mold or mildew. He noted that the musty smell was typical of portables, like Respondent's classroom, that were older and had wood paneling. He noted that although the room generally was clean, it contained many boxes and a large amount of clutter, both of which may attract dust. He recommended that the boxes and clutter be kept to a minimum to prevent dust collection. Within a week, Respondent's classroom was thoroughly cleaned by a maintenance crew. After the classroom was cleaned, Respondent complained to Santana that she noticed a cleaner smell. Santana contacted Cruz-Munoz, who assured her that the cleaners were water-based and did not contain allergens. Santana informed Respondent of this and suggested that the cleaner smell would dissipate over time. In January 2012, Respondent again complained to Santana about the smell of the classroom and that it was aggravating her allergies. Santana again contacted Cruz-Munoz, who arranged another inspection of the classroom. The inspector again reported that the classroom generally was clean and free of visible mold and mildew but contained many boxes; again, the importance of minimizing the number of boxes and clutter so as to avoid collecting dust was stressed. At that point, Santana referred Respondent to workers' compensation so that she could obtain medical attention to address her health issues. At some point in January 2012, Respondent contacted Robert Kalinsky, a regional director with the Miami-Dade Public School system, regarding the air quality and odors in her classroom. Kalinsky was one of Santana's supervisors at the time. Kalinsky notified Santana that Respondent had contacted him and that he also had received a call about about the condition of the classroom from a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board. As a result, Kalinsky paid a visit to Gulfstream. On February 7, 2012, Santana met with Respondent and an assistant principal regarding a number of issues, including the condition of Respondent's classroom. At that meeting, Santana noted that during the recent visit by Kalinsky and personnel who inspected the classroom, the room was observed cluttered with piles of paper on the desk and many other areas, and that there numerous boxes. At the meeting, Santana reminded Respondent regarding many other issues, including those related to classroom and school library procedures and instructional delivery. Effective February 7, 2012, Santana reassigned Respondent to a different classroom that was located in the main building at Gulfstream. Thereafter, Respondent did not have any complaints about the air quality or odors in the classroom to which she had been assigned. She did continue to complain about the odor of air fresheners and scented candles used throughout the school. Santana noted that she regularly dealt with issues similar to those raised by Respondent because she received frequent complaints from teachers regarding the air quality, mold, and odors at Gulfstream due to the school building's advanced age. Santana credibly testified that she never, at any point, became angry with Respondent regarding her concerns about the air quality and odor in the portable classroom, or any actions Respondent that had taken to address those concerns. 2012-2013 School Year Pursuant to section 1012.34(4)(b)1., school vacation periods are not counted as part of the 90-day performance probation period. Accordingly, Respondent's probation period carried over from the end of the 2011-2012 school year to the 2012-2013 school year. When the 2012-2013 school year commenced, her 90-day probation period continued. September 12, 2012 Evaluation On September 12, 2012, Santana formally observed Respondent's classroom teaching for the third time. She observed Respondent for the full duration of the reading/language arts block, approximately two hours. Respondent again failed to meet PS 2. Her instruction did not incorporate techniques and strategies to address the various learning styles and levels of the students in her class. As a result, many students were bored; one student was observed with his head on his desk. Other students attempted, unsuccessfully, to get Respondent's attention to answer questions they had. Respondent was unsuccessful in explaining the small group activities so that several students were off- task. By the time Respondent redirected the off-task students, little time was left for them to engage in the planned activities. Santana observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard when compared to the two previous observations. Likewise, Respondent failed to meet PS 3. She did not develop or present a lesson that addressed logical, sequential goals and objectives and she did not cover the material identified in the lesson plan. Once again, she failed to use differentiated instructional techniques and strategies to address the students' individual learning styles. The lesson was directed only at one skill level and one learning style. Worksheet activities were completed by the entire class, with some students calling out the answers while the others copied those answers on the worksheet. The partner reading portion of the exercise was disorganized and the students were not given adequate direction, so that many students did not understand how the activity was to be conducted. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Respondent also failed to meet PS 4. Her teaching did not include activities directed at eliciting higher order thinking, so did not engage all of the students. Several students were overheard saying they were bored, had already read the material, or already knew the concepts being presented. Other students were off-task, reading stories that had not been assigned. When students were assigned to small groups, insufficient direction was given so that many students did not understand what they were to be doing. In particular, the lack of organization with respect to the computer-based portion of the lesson resulted in students wasting a substantial amount of time before being re-directed to the assigned task. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Santana noted that the learning environment and activities were not academically challenging and did not engage all of the students. Students were not given adequate instruction on the activities in which they were to be participating. In particular, the partner reading portion of the exercise was disorganized and many students did not understand how the activity was to be conducted. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Following the September 12 evaluation, Santana completed the IPEGS Form, conducted another performance review with Respondent, and issued another IP for her on September 18, 2012. Once again, the reading coaches and peer professionals were made available to assist Respondent in implementing the IP. The Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts planners also were resources to which Respondent was referred. The activities in which Respondent was directed to engage to correct her performance deficiencies for PS 2 and PS 3 were very similar to those identified her May 7, 2012 IP. With the new school year, Respondent had a new class of students, and Santana emphasized the importance of Respondent being able to assess those students' learning styles and levels and to plan how she would assign them to instructional groups. Respondent was directed to prepare and submit to the assistant principal weekly lesson plans containing goals, objectives, activities, and strategies to provide instruction aimed at the her students' diverse learning styles and levels. To help Respondent correct her PS 4 deficiencies, the IP emphasized that Respondent was to observe the reading coach (Carrier) and her peers as they modeled effective instructional techniques and activities designed to reach diverse student learning styles and levels. To correct her PS 8 performance deficiencies, Respondent was directed to work with the reading coach and peers to establish a plan for effective classroom procedures, to prepare a written summary of the plan, and to provide the summary to the assistant principal. Additionally, Respondent was directed to observe peer professionals as they taught; to prepare and provide to the assistant principal a list of the effective teaching techniques she observed; and to incorporate three of those techniques into her classroom teaching. She also was directed to maintain a log of teaching techniques she used in her class, with discussion of which techniques were effective or ineffective and why. The log was to be provided to and discussed with Carrier, so that Carrier could assist Respondent in developing and implementing successful classroom techniques and procedures. Again to ensure that everyone involved in implementing Respondent's IP understood their roles and responsibilities, Santana established another 21-day support calendar detailing the specific activities to be conducted on specific days. The activities entailed collaborative planning with Respondent, Carrier, and grade level peers; Respondent working with Carrier and peers to develop small group and differentiated instructional teaching techniques; Respondent's observation of grade level peer teaching and post-observation debriefing regarding instructional best practices; and Respondent's implementation of those best practices in her teaching, to be observed by Carrier, with feedback provided. Respondent engaged in all scheduled activities and timely completed the September 18, 2013, IP. October 11, 2012 Evaluation On October 11, 2012, a fourth formal classroom observation of Respondent was conducted, this time by assistant principal Marybel Baldessari. Baldessari observed Respondent teaching reading/language arts for an hour and a half. Once again Respondent failed to meet PS 2, 3, 4, and 8. With respect to PS 2, Respondent again failed to present differentiated instruction that targeted individual student learning styles and levels; as before, her instruction was aimed only at one learning style and level. With respect to PS 3, Respondent did not ensure that materials were properly organized to accommodate assistance by an interventionist who was working with her that day. As a result, the lesson was disorganized and the lesson was not presented in a logical, sequential manner. With respect to PS 4, again Respondent's instruction was not tailored to meet the students' individual learning styles and levels. Respondent did not appropriately pace the lesson and did not employ teaching techniques, such as appropriate questioning, to encourage students' critical thinking. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Students were off-task; in particular, one was off-task for the entire observation period without ever being redirected to the assigned activity. Respondent also had implemented a behavior plan in the classroom involving colored cards, so that when a student was disciplined, he or she was sent to a "behavior wall" to turn over a card on the behavior chart. On this day, a student who was sent to the behavior chart found his card already turned over from the previous day. This evidenced Respondent's lack of attention to detail in maintaining a classroom environment conducive to appropriate student behavior. Baldessari documented Respondent's deficiencies from the October 11, 2012, observation on the IPEGS Form. Santana scheduled a meeting with Respondent on October 17, 2012, to discuss Baldessari's observations. At the meeting, Respondent was given yet another IP. With respect to remedying Respondent's PS 2 performance deficiencies, Respondent was given the same support resources. Respondent was again directed to meet with Carrier and grade level peer professionals to develop differentiated instructional activities and techniques, to incorporate those activities and techniques into lesson plans, and to provide those lesson plans to Baldessari. Respondent also was directed to meet with Carrier and peers to analyze test and observational data, and to use the information gleaned from that data to plan for differentiated instruction based on individual student learning styles and levels. To remedy her PS 3 deficiencies, Respondent was again referred to Carrier and peer professionals, the Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts reading planners. She was again directed to work with Carrier to develop appropriate lesson plans incorporating appropriate instructional strategies. These plans were to identify appropriate goals, objectives, activities, and instructional strategies and were to be provided to Baldessari. Respondent was assigned to read the book, "Understanding Common Core Standards," and to discuss those standards with Carrier and provide a written summary to Baldessari. With respect to PS 4, Respondent was referred to the same remedial resources as for PS 3. Respondent was directed to work with Carrier and selected peer professionals, who would assist her with planning and developing instructional techniques and strategies to appropriately pace lessons and engage all students. With respect to PS 8, Respondent was directed to work with a special education program ("SPED") specialist to develop effective classroom management procedures. She was assigned to prepare and submit a written summary of these procedures to Baldessari. She also was directed to observe peers, identify effective teaching techniques they used to maintain an academically stimulating and challenging environment, submit a list of those techniques to Baldessari, and incorporate three of those techniques into her teaching. Once again, she was directed to maintain a log listing instructional techniques she used, with discussion of which were effective or ineffective and why. The log was to be provided to and discussed with the Carrier so that she could assist Respondent in developing successful classroom techniques and procedures. Those techniques were to be implemented in Respondent's classroom teaching. Santana developed another support calendar to implement Respondent's latest IP. The support calendar identified activities in which Respondent was to engage with Carrier and the SPED specialist; scheduled time for Respondent to observe and discuss peer teaching techniques; and scheduled collaborative planning sessions in which Respondent, Carrier, and grade level peers were to address the development of differentiated instructional strategies. Carrier worked closely with Respondent to implement the October 17, 2012, IP. In doing so, Carrier demonstrated to Respondent how to incorporate certain instructional techniques into her teaching to better engage the students and enhance their learning experience.4/ Carrier stressed the importance of organization and preparation before the lesson in order for the instructional techniques to be effective. Carrier and Respondent also practiced the use of the instructional techniques. However, when it was time for Respondent to teach the lesson, she was disorganized and unprepared, resulting in a substantial amount of time being wasted on logistical matters, such as having essential materials on hand and ready for use, that should have been addressed before the lesson commenced.5/ Carrier also discussed with Respondent the importance of moving around the classroom to keep students focused and on- task. Nonetheless, Carrier observed that Respondent spent most of her time sitting in a chair in front of the classroom. The chair did have wheels, so occasionally Respondent would roll down the center isle of the classroom.6/ During her time in working with Respondent, Carrier observed that Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Books and clutter were all over the place, so that it was difficult to locate resources that were needed to conduct the lessons. Carrier also observed that there were many pieces of information written on the board in an unstructured, disorganized manner, including information from lessons days ago and random vocabulary words, so that it was very difficult to decipher the information Respondent was attempting to convey in using the board. Carrier further noted that words frequently were misspelled and that there were grammatical errors in the information Respondent wrote on the board. Respondent timely completed the activities set forth in the October 17, 2012, IP. November 19, 2012 Evaluation On November 19, 2012, Santana conducted a fifth formal observation of Respondent's classroom teaching. She observed Respondent teaching reading/language arts for an hour and five minutes. Respondent again failed to meet PS 2. Once again, Respondent's instruction provided only one level of complexity and did not cater to the students' different learning styles and levels. The students were reading a story, and instead of incorporating instructional strategies aimed at meeting all students' learning abilities——such as instructing the high level students to write a paragraph, the grade level students to write a sentence, and the lower level students to draw a picture, about the story——she merely had all of them fill in the same workbook page. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to meeting PS 2. Respondent also failed to meet PS 3. Her lesson plans were not aligned to the instructional pacing guide and did not incorporate strategies to address the students' diverse learning styles and levels. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 3. Respondent again failed to meet PS 4. Her instructional delivery did not actively engage the students and did not address their individual learning styles and needs. Because her instruction addressed only one level of complexity, she lost the high functioning and low functioning students. As a result, there were frequent interruptions that interfered with the pace of the instruction and caused students to engage in off-task behavior. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 4. Respondent also failed to meet PS 8. The learning environment was neither challenging nor stimulating. Although the students were working in small groups presumably established according to learning style and level, they nonetheless were reading the same story and answering the same questions. That, and Respondent's continued failure to establish clear classroom procedures and expectations, resulted in frequent interruptions and distractions. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 8. Recommendation to Terminate Respondent's Employment A post-observation meeting was held on November 29, 2012, and Respondent was properly notified of this meeting. At the meeting, Santana informed Respondent that she had failed to remediate her classroom performance deficiencies within the 90- day probation period, so that she (Santana) was recommending that Respondent's employment contract be terminated. Santana prepared a memorandum to the Miami-Dade Public Schools South Regional Director dated November 29, 2012, detailing Respondent's repeated failure to meet PS 2, PS 3, PS 4, and PS 8. The memorandum also stated: "Data indicate that this employee has not demonstrated corrective action." The memorandum recommended termination of Respondent's employment contract. Petitioner presented evidence, consisting of a summary exhibit and testimony from Gisela Field, the administrative director of the Office of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis for Miami-Dade Public Schools, that Respondent's students' median percentile scores on the 2012 Stanford Achievement Test ("SAT")7/ for Grade 1 for both language arts and mathematics were below those for first grade students at Gulfstream as a whole, and for first grade students in the Miami-Dade County Public School District.8/ Santana did not testify that Respondent's students' SAT median percentile scores were considered in her evaluation of Respondent, or that they constituted a basis for her decision to recommend that Respondent be terminated. Petitioner asserts that the "data" to which Santana's November 29, 2012, memorandum refers are Respondent's students' SAT median percentile scores, evidencing that Santana did consider these scores in evaluating Respondent, and that they were one of the bases for her recommendation that Respondent be terminated.9/ Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding the relative weight given to Respondent's students' scores in conducting her performance evaluation. Respondent's Defenses Respondent began teaching in the Miami-Dade County Public School system in 1989. Thereafter, she took some time off to have children. As previously noted, she resumed fulltime teaching in the 2004-2005 school year. For the period commencing with the 2004-2005 school year, through the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent always received satisfactory classroom performance evaluations.10/ At the final hearing in this proceeding, Respondent testified that she was knowledgeable in preparing lesson plans; adhered to Miami-Dade County Public School District instructional pacing guidelines; engaged in collaborative planning with her colleagues and exchanged ideas regarding making the lessons exciting, fun, and interesting; used objectives, visual aids, posters, computers, books, and hands-on materials to engage students; and employed instructional techniques to address students' diverse learning styles and levels. She further testified that she closely observed her students and obtained feedback from them throughout the instructional day. Respondent also testified that she engaged her students in activities designed to get to know them, that she was sensitive to her students' experiences, that she attempted to make them feel comfortable and safe and to provide a warm and loving environment, and that she knew how to communicate with them and manage their classroom behavior. With respect to specific performance deficiencies identified over the course of the classroom observations conducted by Santana and Baldessari, Respondent asserted that some of the issues with instruction using computers stemmed from technical issues with the computers. In those instances, Respondent would have the students engage in reading activities using books until it was time for them to rotate to another learning center. Respondent believes she was a better teacher in 2011 than she was in 2004 when she re-entered the teaching field fulltime. In her view, this is due to her having participated in personal development workshops, receiving one-on-one instruction, and adapting her teaching style to new curriculum and materials. Respondent asserts that she did not teach any differently in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years than she had in the 2004-2005 school year or any other school year. Respondent contended that she is, and always has been, a very competent teacher, and that the negative performance evaluations she received during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years were unfair and illegitimate. Regarding the condition of the portable classroom to which she was assigned in the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to complain to Santana about the room's odor shortly after the beginning of the school year. In January 2012, she did contact Santana's supervisor Robert Kalinsky to express her concerns. Ultimately, she filed a worker's compensation claim. Once she moved to a different classroom in February 2012, she no longer experienced problems with odors in her classroom. She did continue to have problems with the use of air fresheners and scented candles in other parts of the school building. Respondent noted that only after she complained about the odor and air quality in the portable classroom did she begin receiving negative classroom performance evaluations. She contends that she received negative evaluations for having complained——particularly to Kalinsky and the School Board member——about the condition of the portable. Toward the end of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent applied for a transfer from her instructional position at Gulfstream to another instructional position at another school in the Miami-Dade County Public School District. Both Santana and the Executive Director approved the transfer. Respondent found an instructional position in another school in the Miami-Dade County Public School District, but did not follow through with the transfer. The school was farther from her home than was Gulfstream, so teaching there would entail longer driving time and would add wear and tear to her older vehicle.11/ Findings of Ultimate Fact In this proceeding, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment for failure to correct performance deficiencies pursuant to section 1012.34, and for "just cause"——specifically, for incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to section 1012.33 and rule 6A-5.056. As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that Respondent committed the violations of section 1012.34 and 1012.33 and rule 6A-5.056 alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies With respect to the charge that Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies under section 1012.34, the evidence establishes that Respondent consistently engaged in poor and ineffective classroom instructional practices and that she repeatedly failed to correct these instructional practice deficiencies, notwithstanding the very substantial effort that Santana, reading coaches Rapp and Carrier, and Respondent's peers devoted to assisting her in improving her teaching performance. Specifically, the evidence showed that Respondent was consistently ineffective at addressing the individual learning needs, styles, and levels of her students; that she failed to employ appropriate instructional strategies and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals, objectives, and activities to address her students' diverse needs; that she did not address her students' academic needs through a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and techniques that engage them in the learning process; and that she was ineffective in creating and maintaining a classroom environment conducive to learning. The credible evidence does not show that Respondent received negative instructional practice evaluations in retaliation for having complained about the condition of her classroom in the 2011-2012 school year. Rather, the persuasive evidence——which includes corroborative testimony and an IPEGS observation by Baldessari and testimony by Carrier——shows that Respondent received negative performance evaluations because she failed to meet the IPEGS performance standards. However, the evidence failed to adequately address the student performance component of Respondent's performance evaluation pursuant to section 1012.34(3)(a)1.a. As discussed in greater detail below, section 1012.34(3)(a) places great emphasis on student performance on student learning growth assessments——specifically, the FCAT or school district assessments——in evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. Indeed, the statute mandates that at least 50 percent of a performance evaluation be based on data and indicators of student of student learning growth as assessed annually by the FCAT or by school district assessments. Only where (as here) less than three years of data for student learning growth assessments (i.e., FCAT or school district test scores) are available can the percentage of the teacher's performance evaluation based on student learning growth be reduced to less than 50 percent——and even then, it cannot be reduced to less than 40 percent. Here, Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding the relative weight that Santana assigned to Respondent's students' 2012 SAT median percentile scores for language arts and mathematics in evaluating Respondent under section 1012.34. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether the required relative weight of at least 40 percent was given to the scores in evaluating Respondent, and, ultimately, in recommending that she be terminated. For this reason, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies pursuant to section 1012.34 such that her employment should be terminated. Incompetency Due to Inefficiency As previously noted above, the evidence showed that Respondent consistently and repeatedly was ineffective at addressing the individual learning needs, styles, and levels of her students.12/ She repeatedly failed to employ appropriate instructional strategies and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals, objectives, and activities to address her students' diverse needs. She failed to address her students' academic needs through employing a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and techniques to engage them in the learning process. She consistently used the same instructional materials and techniques to teach students of varying learning styles and levels and did not adequately pace the lessons. She also failed, on a consistent basis, to create and maintain a classroom environment conducive to learning. Her room was disorganized and cluttered, with misspelled words and grammatical errors written on the blackboard. She often was unprepared, so did not efficiently conduct the lessons. She did not establish consistent classroom procedures to address student behavioral issues and keep students on task. As such, Respondent consistently and repeatedly failed to effectively communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that the students were deprived of minimum educational experience. Due to her inefficiency, she was neither able nor fit to discharge her required duties as a teacher.13/ Moreover, the evidence establishes that Respondent failed to perform duties prescribed by law.14/ Section 1012.53(1) provides in pertinent part that the primary duty of instructional personnel is to work diligently and faithfully to help students meet or exceed annual learning goals and to meet state and local achievement requirements. The evidence establishes that due to Respondent's serious, repeated performance deficiencies previously described herein, she did not work diligently and faithfully to, and did not succeed in, helping her students meet or exceed the annual learning goals they were supposed to meet as prescribed by curriculum and lesson plans. Nor did she work diligently and faithfully to help them meet state and local achievement requirements. In fact, Respondent's students' 2012 SAT median percentile scores—— particularly for mathematics, which shows their achievement as much as 34.5 percentile points lower than all first graders in the Miami-Dade County Public School District——stand as strong evidence to this point.15/ The evidence also established that Respondent's teaching practices and classroom were so disorganized that the welfare of her students was diminished.16/ Her lack of organization in teaching caused confusion on the part of her students and instructional time often was wasted. Further, the disorganization and clutter in her classroom made it difficult to locate resources for the lessons. It was apparent at the final hearing that Respondent cares about her students and believes that she is a good teacher. However, Respondent's personal feelings and beliefs do not overcome the strong evidence presented in this case showing that she is not a competent teacher. Petitioner proved that, for the reasons set forth herein, Respondent is incompetent due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056.17/ Accordingly, Petitioner proved that just cause exists under section 1012.33 to terminate Respondent's professional services contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order terminating Respondent's professional services employment contract on the basis of just cause under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 7th day of January, 2014.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a high school teacher assigned to Miami Norland Senior High School. Respondent holds a continuing contract. Respondent began teaching for the Dade County Public Schools during the 1968-69 school year. During that school year, the annual evaluation form utilized by Petitioner provided that a score of below 3.5 indicated unsatisfactory work. During that, his first year of teaching, Respondent received a score of 3.2 on his annual evaluation. For the next 15 years thereafter, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluations for each and every year. During the 1984 summer session, an incident occurred between Respondent and one of his students. As a result of Petitioner's investigation into the allegation that Respondent had committed a battery on that student, conferences were held between Respondent and administrative personnel. Respondent requested a leave of absence for the 1984-85 school year due to personal reasons, and his request for leave of absence was granted. Respondent was required, however, to undergo a psychological evaluation prior to returning to his duties as a classroom teacher. During that school year while Respondent was on leave of absence, he was evaluated by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist to whom he was referred by Petitioner. Respondent thereafter saw Dr. Albert C. Jaslow, a private psychiatrist, on two occasions. Dr. Jaslow submitted two reports which contained, inter alia, a recommendation that Respondent be transferred to a different school. Dr. Wainger reviewed Dr. Jaslow's reports and her own earlier report and, on May 21, 1985, submitted a report to Petitioner stating, inter alia, that there was no barrier to Respondent's being reinstated into active teaching. Based upon that evaluation, Petitioner permitted Respondent to return to the same teaching position previously held by him for the 1985-86 school year. At the conclusion of that school year, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluation. Respondent again received acceptable annual evaluations for the following two years, i.e., the 1986-87 and the 1987- 88 school years. On his annual evaluation for the 1988-89 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the area of classroom management, one of the six categories of classroom performance. Pursuant to the rules governing the TADS evaluation system, a rating of unacceptable in any of the categories covered by the annual evaluation instrument requires an overall rating of unacceptable. On his annual evaluation for the 1989-90 school year Respondent was rated as being acceptable in all six categories of classroom performance, including the area of classroom management. It was specifically noted on his annual evaluation form that Respondent had performed satisfactorily during both of the official observations made of his classroom performance. However, Respondent was rated as unacceptable in the non-classroom category entitled professional responsibility. That rating of unacceptable in that one category required that Respondent's overall rating be unacceptable. The basis for the unacceptable rating in the area of professional responsibility involved the determination that Respondent had been disrespectful to students on two separate occasions. On April 16, 1990, one of Respondent's students called another of his students who had an unusual skin pigmentation condition "two-toned." Respondent immediately told the offending student, "do not call the girl two-toned." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent on April 30, 1990, and Respondent was given a supervisory referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During the week of May 7, 1990, one of Respondent's students was being verbally abusive to the other students, and Respondent told him to stop. That student thereupon began being verbally abusive toward Respondent and using profanity. Respondent then said to that student, "you should talk. You look like Mr. Spock from Star Trek." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent, and he was issued a formal reprimand. The summary of the conference for the record dated June 1, 1990, prepared by the principal of Miami Norland Senior High School states that the student involved has physically-deformed ears. On his annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and professional responsibility. Accordingly, he received an overall evaluation of unacceptable. During the 1990-91 school year there were no reported incidents of Respondent allegedly making disrespectful remarks to students. That basis for being rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility during the prior academic year was cured. The rating of unacceptable in the area of classroom management was based upon a number of observations of Respondent during the school year wherein the observers noted a lack of control in the classroom, Respondent's failure or inability to re-direct students who were off-task, Respondent's failure or inability to enforce classroom rules, and Respondent's failure or inability to deal with students who were tardy in coming to his class. As to his techniques of instruction, observers during that school year noted that Respondent was teaching from sub-standard books (without noting whether that was a matter within Respondent's control), that the students were confused by Respondent's directions on several occasions, that the students did not understand the lessons being taught, and that on several occasions Respondent made errors in math when writing examples on the board. Some of the observers also noted that Respondent spent too much time on some of the lessons that he was teaching. Numerous prescriptions were given to Respondent during that school year to improve his instruction and to manage his classroom, such as reading sections of the TADS manual and observing other teachers. Respondent complied with each and every prescription given to him. As to being unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility, Respondent failed to properly maintain student folders reflecting their work to justify grades being given to the students, and there were errors in Respondent's gradebook. It also became apparent that Respondent was not making parental contact for students that were performing unsatisfactorily. By March of the 1990-91 school year Respondent was directed in writing to make parental contact as required by Dade County Public School policy. By memorandum dated June 3, 1991, Respondent was notified that he was required to produce within 48 hours a complete up-to-date gradebook, a parent contact log substantiating parent contacts for the entire school year, and all student folders substantiating Respondent's gradebook. He was advised that if he did not do so, he would receive an unsatisfactory rating in the area of professional responsibility. The principal and assistant principal understood the directive to mean that Respondent must produce those documents by noon on June 6, and Respondent understood the directive to mean that he was to produce the documents on June 6. At noon, the principal was not available to Respondent. Respondent did produce many of the documents later that day. There was, of course, no parental log for the entire year since one did not exist. At the end of the 1990-91 school year a recommendation for dismissal was made. Based upon that recommendation, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, suspended Respondent from his employment effective at the close of the workday on July 25, 1991, for incompetency and gross insubordination. In 1984 Respondent filed a grievance against Assistant Principal Wessel and Principal Fowler at Miami Norland Senior High School. The subject of the grievance was that Assistant Principal Wessel had in a loud voice and in a demeaning manner criticized Respondent's lesson plans in front of other teachers, staff and students. The grievance was also filed against Principal Fowler to enlist his assistance in making Wessel refrain from repeated conduct of that nature. The Union considered the grievance to be valid and processed it through the grievance procedures. Thereafter, Respondent was advised by Fowler and Wessel that he had made a big mistake and he would be sorry for having filed that grievance. Respondent began to believe that he had lost the support of the administration and that his job was in jeopardy. When Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year he was moved to a classroom directly across from the main office. Respondent considered that action to be demeaning. He still achieved acceptable evaluations for that year and the following year. During the next school year, in the middle of February, the administration moved Respondent to an old metal shop room and gave his classroom to a new teacher. He still achieved an acceptable annual evaluation that year. For the following school year the administrators assigned Respondent to teach five low-level math classes using five different classrooms. For the last three years of his teaching career, the ones during which he received unacceptable ratings in different categories, Respondent was required to teach all low-level math classes. Although administrative personnel testified that some teachers like low-level classes, Respondent repeatedly made it clear that he did not want that assignment. Further, there is a specific contract provision between the Dade County Schools and the teachers' union prohibiting teachers from being locked into low-level classes year after year, as Respondent was. During the last several years while Respondent was achieving unsatisfactory ratings in some categories, while he was being switched from classroom to classroom, and while he was being required to teach only low-level classes year after year, the administrative staff actively undermined Respondent's authority and demeaned him in front of students and other teachers. They told teachers and students that they were trying to get rid of Respondent and that Respondent was a bad teacher. When Respondent referred disruptive students to the office, the administrative staff laughed or simply refused to take any follow-up action. On one occasion when Respondent referred a student to the office for throwing an eraser at another student, an assistant principal told the misbehaving student that he should have thrown the eraser at Respondent instead. Respondent "lost face" around the school. It became known that the students could misbehave in Respondent's classes with impunity. Even the students understood that Respondent was assigned only the most difficult of students. Although there was a new principal at Miami Norland Senior High School during Respondent's last year of teaching, the new principal, coincidentally, had been the principal for the 1984 summer session at Parkway Junior High School where Respondent had been involved in an incident with a student prior to taking his year's leave of absence from teaching. Under the new principal's administration, Respondent was retained in his assignment of five low-level math classes and was moved to the classroom directly across from the office. No evidence was offered that the new principal understood that efforts had been made to keep Respondent's authority undermined and to make him quit. It is clear, however, that no steps were taken to stop or reverse the damage to Respondent's reputation and ability to teach. In response to Respondent's referral to the Employee Assistance Program, Respondent did make the contact required of him. In fact, there were numerous contacts between Respondent and the personnel involved in that program. Additionally, Respondent was seen by Dr. Goldin, a mental health professional, on four occasions between April and June of 1990. Between June and September of 1990, he also saw an associate of Dr. Goldin eight times in individual sessions and four times in joint sessions with his wife. Respondent repeatedly requested transfers from his teaching assignment at Miami Norland Senior High School. Some of the requests were made to his principals and some of them were sent to the Office of Professional Standards. From the time that Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year, he requested transfers each and every year. He requested a transfer at least twice during his last year of teaching. Some of the requests for transfer were hardship requests and others were normal requests. Additionally, both Dr. Jaslow in 1985 and Dr. Goldin in 1990 recommended to the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent be transferred to a different school. All requests for transfer were ignored. During the last years of Respondent's teaching career, in addition to the stress placed upon him by the administrative staff's efforts to undermine and ridicule him, he experienced additional stress as a result of his wife's serious illness. He told a number of the administrative staff about the problem at home. The difficulty under which that placed him was part of the reason for the referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During those last years, during conferences with administrative staff regarding his performance, Respondent exhibited anxiety and showed signs of stress. He accused the administration of undermining him and of treating him unfairly. He even attributed some of the problems he was experiencing in the classroom to the administrators. Their reaction to Respondent's accusations was to accuse Respondent of being paranoid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent without pay for the 1990-91 school year and reinstating him as a full-time classroom teacher thereafter at a school other than Miami Norland Senior High School. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 27th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-4936 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 33, 35-37, 65, 67, 68, 72, and 74 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 8, 11, 19, 32, 38, 58, 71, 75, and 77 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5-7, 9, 10, 12-18, 20-31, 39-57, 59-64, 66, 69, 70, 73, and 76 have been rejected as being unnecessary in determining the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 34 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4-11, 13, and 14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 12, and 15 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Copies furnished: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue The issue for determination at hearing is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint, and if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Wilma Nottage (Respondent) held a teaching certificate issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education, having been issued educator's certificate #357933, in the areas of Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, and English to Speakers of Other Languages. Her teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. Respondent graduated from Florida Atlantic University in 1974 with a degree in Elementary Education and immediately thereafter began employment as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board (School Board). At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed with the School Board as a classroom teacher. For the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was hired by the Principal of Norwood Elementary School (Norwood) to teach fifth grade. The Principal interviewed Respondent and was very impressed with her professionalism and appearance. During Respondent's first year at Norwood, the Principal found Respondent's teaching ability to be acceptable and Respondent's behavior and appearance to be professional. Respondent received an acceptable annual performance evaluation for the 1989-90 school year. However, during the 1991-92 school year, the Principal observed that Respondent's appearance, performance, and emotional stability deteriorated and continued to deteriorate through the 1992-93 school year. At hearing, the Principal observed that the Respondent, who was present, was the Respondent that she saw, appearance wise, in the 1989-90 school year. For the 1991-92 school year, at Respondent's request, she was assigned to teach kindergarten at Norwood. 3/ The teaching concept was different for kindergarten in that there was only one classroom and the students were taught in a team concept with three teachers, Respondent being one of the three teachers. The teachers would plan together, but the subjects being taught would be equally divided. On or about October 30, 1991, the Assistant Principal of Norwood conducted an observation of Respondent's teaching performance after giving her proper notice. In an observation a teacher's classrooom performance is assessed as acceptable or unacceptable (deficient) in six areas: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. The Assistant Principal found Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the area of classroom management. After an observation is conducted, a post-observation is held between the observer and the teacher to discuss the observation. If there are any deficiencies found, a plan for performance improvement, also called a prescription, is issued to the teacher. The prescription contains activities (strategies) for remediating the deficiencies, a date certain (time line) for completion of the activities of the prescription, and a date for the next observation, if necessary. On or about November 5, 1991, the Assistant Principal held a post- observation conference with Respondent to discuss his observation. A prescription was given to Respondent, with a completion date of November 25, 1991. Respondent failed to complete the activities of the prescription. The team concept was not working for the kindergarten class. Respondent was infrequently completing her lesson plans, and the grades of the students for whom Respondent was responsible for assigning and recording were not properly recorded. Further, the students for whom Respondent was responsible consistently failed to complete the required areas of study, and Respondent frequently left her students unattended. The Principal became concerned that a health problem was interfering with Respondent's performance in the classroom. The Principal did not question Respondent's ability to teach. On or about November 21, 1991, by memorandum to the Associate Superintendent for the Bureau of Professional Standards and Operation of the School Board, the Principal requested a medical fitness determination for Respondent, as a component of the employee assistance program. The Principal's request was based upon, among other things, Respondent's combative and emotional behavior, inefficient work performance (no grades in her grade book), and pattern of absences. Respondent participated in the employee assistance program. However, her participation prematurely ended, lasting only approximately one (1) month. Respondent was not attending the scheduled conferences and ended her participation indicating that she was getting assistance on her own. On December 16, 1991, a conference for the record was held with Respondent. During the conference, Respondent admitted that she had not completed any of the requirements set forth in the prescription issued November 5, 1991. Even though Respondent's observation of October 30, 1991 was unacceptable and she had not remediated the deficiencies, the Principal was recommending Respondent's reappointment for one year. Also, Respondent was afforded additional time in which to complete the prescription and was to submit the appropriate paperwork for the prescription by January 7, 1992. On January 22, 1992, the Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the area of classroom management. Prior to the observation on January 22, 1992, the Principal terminated the kindergarten team because the team concept was not working. Even though Respondent's participation in the team was less than adequate, the other two kindergarten teachers contributed to the failure of the team concept by failing to provide Respondent a fair chance to join the team and teach in the kindergarten setting as established at Norwood. The other two kindergarten teachers did not properly assist or support Respondent or share needed materials. On January 29, 1992, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent regarding the observation on January 22, 1992. A prescription, consisting of two activities, was given to Respondent with time lines for completing the activities. Respondent was unable to complete one of the activities due to illness. Respondent failed to complete the second activity. On February 27, 1992, the Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. The Principal found the observation of February 27, 1992, unusual in that areas in which Respondent was previously found to be acceptable were now found to be unacceptable. The Principal's position is that, if a teacher is capable of doing something one day, the teacher is capable of doing the same thing another day. On March 5, 1992, a post-observation conference was conducted and a prescription was given to Respondent regarding the observation of February 27, 1992. The time line for completion of the activities of the prescription was March 27, 1992. As of March 27, 1992, the Principal had not received the material from Respondent showing that the activities of the prescription were completed. The Principal extended Respondent's compliance date for the prescription to April 1, 1992. By memorandum dated March 31, 1992, the Principal informed Respondent that her failure to comply with the required prescription by April 1, 1992, would result in a violation of professional responsibility which is a category VII classroom assessment violation. Not completing the activities of the prescription by April 1, 1992, Respondent requested an extension to April 13, 1992, which was granted by the Principal. However, on April 13, 1992, Respondent failed to complete the activities of the prescription. The Principal notified Respondent that her conduct of not completing the prescription constituted insubordination and could result in disciplinary action if it continued. By another memorandum dated March 31, 1992, the Principal requested an external review (external observation) of Respondent's classroom performance. The external observation provides an independent observation of Respondent's classroom performance. By memorandum dated April 1, 1992, the Principal notified Respondent that her unusually high number of absences since the beginning of the 1991-92 school year were adversely affecting the educational environment. The School Board allows 10 days for sick leave during a school year. The memorandum specified the dates of the absences, the category of the absences (whether personal or sick leave), and how the absences impacted the educational environment. Five of Respondent's absences were designated as sick leave. The Principal issued directives to Respondent as to how she should conduct herself in the future regarding absences and informed Respondent that her failure to comply with the directives would result in a review of her situation for disciplinary action. On April 30, 1992, a conference for the record was held with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Respondent's attendance, her noncompliance with the directives to complete the prescriptions of January 22, 1992, and March 27, 1992, and her future job status. As a result of the conference, among other things, it was agreed that Respondent would present the materials needed to comply with all the prescriptions to the Principal by May 8, 1992. On May 13, 1992, the external observation which was requested by the Principal was conducted by the School Board's District Director of the Office of Instructional Leadership after giving proper notice. Simultaneously, in conjunction with the external observation, the Principal conducted an observation after giving proper notice. The District Director found Respondent's classroom performance unacceptable in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. The Principal found Respondent's classroom performance unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, and techniques of instruction. When the two observations were reviewed together, the area of knowledge of subject matter was determined to be acceptable. On May 20, 1992, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. A prescription was given to Respondent with time lines for completion of the activities of the prescription. On May 29, 1992, the Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, and techniques of instruction. On June 8, 1992, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. A prescription was given to Respondent with a June 18, 1992, completion date for the activities of the prescription. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991-92 school year was conducted on June 17, 1992. Her overall performance was found unacceptable in two areas: classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable areas. Also, on June 17, 1992, a conference for the record was held with Respondent regarding her failure to complete the activities of the prescription due April 27, 1992, the unacceptable observation of May 29, 1992, and her future job status. Respondent was informed, among other things, that the prescription deadline for the activities due June 18, 1992, was changed to June 19, 1992, that she continued to have an opportunity to complete outstanding prescriptions, that she was ending the year on prescription and that her end of year evaluation was rated unacceptable. For the 1992-93 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach the fifth grade. Respondent did not receive this assignment until around the beginning of the school year. Expecting to teach kindergarten, Respondent had prepared for kindergarten; however, the enrollment for kindergarten declined and there was not a need for a third teacher in kindergarten. The Assistant Principal requested Respondent's lesson plans for the first week of classes, but Respondent failed to make them available. Furthermore, in her lesson plans for the second week of classes, Respondent failed to include four objectives which are required to be included in lesson plans. By memorandum dated September 23, 1992, the Principal reminded Respondent of the requirement for lesson plans and the objectives which are required to be included in lesson plans. On October 6, 1992, the Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. On October 13, 1992, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. A prescription was given to Respondent. The activities of the prescription were to be completed by November 16, 1992, with one to be completed by October 23, 1992. Respondent failed to complete the prescription. On November 17, 1992, the Assistant Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Assistant Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. On November 23, 1992, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent in which Respondent was given a prescription. The activities of the prescription were to be completed by December 4, 1992. Respondent failed to complete the prescription. Subsequently, the teachers' union interceded and changes were made in the results of the observation of November 17, 1992. The areas of knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction were found to be acceptable; and, therefore, Respondent's classroom performance on November 17, 1992, was unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, and assessment techniques. On December 16, 1992, a conference for the record was held with Respondent to discuss, among other things, Respondent's performance assessments, her failure to provide required lesson plans and to complete required prescriptions, and her future employment. Respondent was informed, among other things, that her failure to comply with directives was insubordination and that, if she continued to have unacceptable performance ratings, her situation would be submitted to the Department of Education for review. At the December 16, 1992 conference, Respondent's behavior was unusual, out of character. She was very loud instead of her usual quiet self. On February 2, 1993, a conference for the record was held with Respondent. She was requested to provide the outstanding prescriptions. Because Respondent had not completed all of the requested prescriptions, she was given twenty-four (24) hours to complete and provide the unfinished prescriptions. Respondent failed to complete the prescriptions within the 24- hour period. On February 16, 1993, the Principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. On February 24, 1993, a post-observation conference was held and a prescription was given to Respondent. Included in the prescription was an unacceptable performance in the area of professional responsibility (category VII violation) regarding Respondent's failure to comply with prescription deadlines. The activities of the prescription were to completed by March 10, 1993. Respondent failed to complete the prescription. On March 17, 1993, the Assistant Principal observed Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Assistant Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, and assessment techniques. The post-observation conference in which a prescription was issued was held on March 24, 1993. 4/ However, because the conference was not timely held, the observation was used only for assistance purposes. By memorandum dated March 24, 1993, the School Board's Associate Superintendent of the Bureau of Instructional Support requested an external observation of Respondent's classroom performance. On April 21, 1993, an external observation of Respondent's classroom performance was conducted by the School Board's Executive Director for Mathematics, Science and the Urban System Initiative after giving proper notice. Simultaneously, in conjunction with the external observation, the Principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. Both the Director and the Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. A post-observation conference was scheduled for April 28, 1993; however, Respondent was absent that day. The conference was held on April 30, 1993. Respondent was given a prescription, consisting of two activities, with the activities of the prescription to be completed by May 10, 1993. Respondent failed to complete one of the activities by the due date. On April 14, 1993, a conference was held with Respondent and a prescription was given to her regarding her unacceptable performance in the area of professional responsibility (category VII). The prescription addressed Respondent's failure to provide upon request and to maintain lesson plans, grade books and graded material and her failure to comply with prescription deadlines. By memorandum dated May 14, 1993, and received by Respondent on June 3, 1993, the Principal advised Respondent of her excessive absences for the 1992-93 school year to date. Twenty-six of Respondent's absences were designated as sick leave. Moreover, the Principal advised Respondent that the absences adversely impacted the support services to students, the academic progress of the students, the continuity of instruction, and the effective operation of the school. The Principal issued directives to Respondent and advised Respondent that the failure to comply with the directives would result in review by the Office of Professional Standards and, possibly, in disciplinary action. On May 20, 1993, the Assistant Principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom performance after giving proper notice. The Assistant Principal found Respondent's performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, and assessment techniques. On May 24, 1993, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. A prescription was given to Respondent. The activities of the prescription were to be completed by June 17, 1993. Respondent failed to complete the prescription. On June 2, 1993, Respondent's annual evaluation was conducted. The Principal found Respondent's overall performance unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable areas. A conference for the record was held with Respondent on June 2, 1993, regarding her performance assessments and her continued employment with the School Board. Respondent was reminded and advised, among other things, that she had 31 absences for the school year, had not completed all prescriptions, and had two years of unacceptable evaluations, and that her performance would be recommended for review and termination procedures. Prior to the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years, Respondent had not received an unacceptable annual evaluation, having been in the classroom for almost 17 years. Respondent experienced medical problems during the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years. During the 1991-92 school year, Respondent's medical problems included high blood pressure, back pain, and a herniated disc. Also, Respondent received psychological treatment from a psychologist, which was independent of the employee assistance program. During the 1992-93 school, Respondent's medical problems included high blood pressure, pain and swelling in her legs and ankles, back problems, and fibroid tumors. These medical problems which were experienced by Respondent over the two school years caused her to be absent from school for many days. Obviously, the medical problems would have some affect on Respondent's teaching performance. However, there is no medical opinion, no objective evidence as to how and to what extent the medical problems affected or would affect Respondent's teaching performance. 5/ In June 1993, after almost 19 years as a teacher with the School Board, Respondent resigned from the School Board as a teacher. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was no longer receiving treatment for her physical or mental well-being. However, there is no medical evidence indicating that Respondent no longer needs such medical treatment. At no time during any of the post-observation conferences in which prescriptions were given did Respondent indicate that she was experiencing any medical problems whether they were physical or psychological. Because of Respondent's conduct during the 1991-92 and the 1992-93 school years, her effectiveness as a teacher was seriously reduced, she failed to provide the children in her classes the minimal education experience required or reasonably expected, and she has demonstrated that she did not possess the competence to teach or perform the duties of a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order: 1.Suspending Wilma Nottage's teaching certificate for 60 days; Requiring Wilma Nottage to submit to a physical and psychological evaluation, prior to reemployment, which must confirm that there is no physical or psychological impediment to her teaching students; Placing Wilma Nottage on a two-year probation, commencing at the time of reemployment, with the condition that, during the first year of probation, she successfully complete two three-hour college courses or the equivalent in- service training courses in the areas of classroom management and elementary education; and Reprimanding Wilma Nottage. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November 1995. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November 1995.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's professional service contract for his failure to correct his performance deficiencies within his 90-calendar-day probation period.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jose L. Rojas, has been employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, as a teacher pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 2004-2005 school year, he taught regular sixth-grade math classes at Redland Middle School. Teachers employed by the School Board, including Respondent, are evaluated pursuant to the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System, known as PACES. PACES was collectively bargained with the teachers' union and approved by the Florida Department of Education in 2001 as being in statutory compliance for teacher evaluations in Petitioner's school district. PACES focuses on student learning and teacher professional development, as well as on teaching behaviors. In PACES, there are seven domains: six are to be observed during a classroom observation, and the seventh domain deals with professional responsibilities demonstrated outside the classroom observation. The domains reflect the required statutory competencies of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Each domain has teaching and learning components, and each component has indicators, 44 of which are required to meet standards under PACES. The 44 indicators are fundamental units of observation that are used to make professional judgments about the quality of learning and teaching. They represent the basic level of teaching to be demonstrated by all teachers in Petitioner's school district, i.e., the minimum requirements. They are the objective standards described in the PACES manual. Teachers have PACES manuals and access to the PACES Internet website. The standards are also repeated in any professional improvement plan, known as a PIP. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for a domain to be rated below performance standards. One below-standard domain indicates a teacher's non-compliance with statutorily- required competencies. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) measures student performance on the State's objectives for Florida's required curriculum, the Sunshine State Standards. While Petitioner's school district, as a whole, must utilize the FCAT data and indicators of student performance, there is no similar requirement for evaluating teachers by the results of the performance of their students on the FCAT (or other local assessments for subject matters not covered by the FCAT). Individual evaluations of teachers, however, must address student performance. PACES addresses student performance in every domain. What is assessed is whether the teacher is monitoring and gauging student progress in the classroom, making sure that the students are mastering the required curriculum. Teachers are expected to use their students' FCAT scores from the prior year for planning, pursuant to PACES domain I, to meet the students' deficiencies. Redland utilizes FCAT results in this manner. Further, a teacher's teaching strategies and activities are required to address FCAT expectations. At the beginning of the school year, teachers at Redland receive copies of the scope and sequence for what the students are to learn during the school year. The teachers develop the curriculum and timelines for meeting benchmarks to be covered during the school year. PACES domain II, as another example, deals with the teacher's management of the learning environment. If time is not managed and is, instead, wasted, the students' achievement of the Sunshine State Standards will be impacted, which will affect FCAT scores. PACES domain IV, as yet another example, requires teachers to informally assess the students' engagement in learning to assess their performance to ascertain whether the students are mastering the Sunshine State Standards. All of the administrators who were PACES observers in this case have had extensive training in the standards to be observed and evaluated in teacher performance and student learning and are, therefore, authorized to perform PACES observations, which are based upon what the observer objectively observes while in the classroom. The performance probation process in Petitioner's school district, like the PACES teacher evaluation process, was collectively bargained with the teachers' union. The process is as follows: if there is an observation conducted by an administrator that indicates a teacher is performing below standards, it becomes the "initial observation not of record." The administrator meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, makes suggestions for improvement, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed again in approximately three weeks. The administrator offers the teacher the assistance of a professional growth team (PGT). Use of a PGT is voluntary on the part of the teacher at this point. The PGT is part of the professional development aspect of PACES. PGTs are composed of experienced peer teachers who are extensively trained in PACES and are authorized to give support and assistance to teachers to improve classroom instruction. The same administrator who conducted the "initial observation not of record" must conduct the next observation, the "kick-off observation," which is the first observation of record in that school year. If this observation reveals below- standards performance, a conference-for-the-record (CFR) is held. A PGT and a PIP are provided to the teacher. The performance probation period begins the day after a PIP is given to the teacher. The teachers' union and Petitioner then mutually agree on the calendar for counting the 90 days. There must be two official observations during the performance probation period. The teacher must meet all 44 required indicators in order to meet performance standards during the teacher's performance probation. If any indicators are below performance standards, PIPs are again given. There are four levels of PIP activities, which are progressively more complex. A "confirmatory observation" takes place after the 90th day to determine whether the teacher has corrected his or her deficiencies. The "confirmatory observation" must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the performance probation, and the evaluator must forward a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools. Within 14 days of receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the teacher whether he will recommend to the school board that the teacher's employment be continued or terminated. It is not sufficient for the teacher to improve on only some of the deficient indicators. It has been the custom and practice under the collective bargaining agreement that remediation occurs only when the teacher meets standards in all of the required indicators. Respondent's initial observation was conducted by Assistant Principal Fahringer on September 23, 2004. Respondent was teaching a class of 20-23 students. Respondent told the students to take out their agenda books which contained their homework. As Respondent went around the classroom checking each student's homework, the remainder of the students just sat and talked, waiting for a lesson to begin. They were not working on math. Out of the two-hour block of class time, the class was off-task about 25 percent of the time. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators of domain II, managing the learning environment, and domain IV, enhancing and enabling learning. Pursuant to the agreed-upon procedures, the observation became "not of record." Assistant Principal Fahringer met with Respondent September 28, 2004, went over the evaluation, and explained why Respondent had not met performance standards. Fahringer gave Respondent suggestions for improvement and advised him that she would return to do a follow-up observation. She offered Respondent a PGT, which he accepted. On October 19, 2004, Fahringer performed Respondent's first observation of record, the "kick-off observation." Respondent was giving a lesson on fractions, decimals, and percentages to 32 students using cups of M&Ms and a chart. Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four. There followed much noise and confusion. As Respondent went from group to group, he did not monitor the other seven groups. Students threw M&Ms and paper wads. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components and indicators of domains II and IV. He did not meet standards in domain II because the learning did not begin promptly. After a five-minute delay, another five minutes were wasted while Respondent counted out the M&Ms. Ten minutes wasted at the beginning of the class is a significant amount of time since time spent on-task improves achievement. There were delays in the organizational and teaching/learning activities. When Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four, some students appeared uncertain as to what group they were in and, instead, milled around talking noisily. Some students remained off-task throughout the lesson. Respondent did not address the off-task behavior because he did not appear to even notice it while he focused on one group at a time. Students came to Respondent with their agenda books, "visiting" other students and talking with them on the way. Eight students were distracted, noisy, and off-task, but Respondent failed to redirect them. Respondent's expectations about acceptable behavior had apparently not been made clear to the students. Although he told them to raise their hands and not to talk, they continued to talk noisily to each other for 50 minutes. Respondent failed to effectively monitor the class throughout the lesson. When he was with one group, he did not use management techniques to diffuse the unacceptable off-task behavior of the other groups. The remaining seven groups did not work (no learning took place) while they waited for Respondent to come to them. Respondent did not meet standards in domain IV because he did not introduce the purpose of the lesson. The students were told how to count the M&Ms and complete a chart, but there was no explanation as to what they were to learn. The students did not understand that they were learning the relationship among fractions, decimals, and percentages. Respondent did not give clear and complete directions. He told the students that they were going to "integrate" decimals, percents, and fractions, a meaningless word choice. The directions did not include any explanation of content or integration of mathematical concepts. Respondent did not demonstrate accurate content knowledge. He gave inaccurate and unclear information to the students. He counted the various colored M&Ms and put the numbers on the chart. On the chart, he explained that the decimals--.35, .10, .25, .17, .03, and .71--equal one, when in fact they equal 1.61. Also on the chart, Respondent explained that the percentages--35%, 10%, 25%, 17%, 3%, and 71%--equal 100%, when in fact they equal 161%. The students accepted the inaccurate information. On the line of the chart indicating the fractions, Respondent reduced some of the fractions leaving different denominators, which made the addition of those fractions difficult. On October 29, 2004, Principal DePriest and Assistant Principal Fahringer held a CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's sub-standard performance, his performance probation, recommendations for improving the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner. Respondent's input was sought, and he was formally assigned a PGT. Respondent was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP on November 1, 2004. The PIP required him to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manual by November 22, 2004. Respondent's performance probation period began November 2, 2004, the day after he received the PIP. He was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time. Respondent's PGT provided assistance to him throughout his performance probation. Respondent failed to complete his PIP activities by the November 22 deadline. On December 2 he was given another 24 hours to comply, which he did. On November 24, 2004, Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal DePriest. Respondent was presenting a lesson to 19 students, but the classroom was too chaotic for learning to take place. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent wasted 12 minutes reprimanding students, taking roll, and answering his personal cell phone while the students were not engaged in learning. There were also inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The students went to the board, one by one, to solve math problems. Respondent spent approximately five minutes with each student at the board while the rest of the class became noisy, walked around, or slept. Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior or the behavior of the entire class. As Respondent focused on the one student at the board, the other students were off-task for up to five minutes at a time throughout the lesson, talking, putting their heads down, tapping their pencils, and making inappropriate comments such as "Can someone choke me?", "Can someone kill me?", and "Can I die now?". One student simply played with her hair for six minutes. Essentially, everyone was talking, and no one was listening to Respondent. Yet, Respondent did nothing to redirect the students. He did not appear to have classroom conduct rules in place. Thus, Respondent failed to make his expectations about behavior clear to the students. He instructed them not to talk without raising their hands. Nevertheless, eight of the students talked out-of-turn for 20 minutes without raising their hands. DePriest met with Respondent on December 2, 2004, to review the observation. DePriest provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes on the PACES Internet website. Respondent was to maintain a log and discuss techniques and strategies with DePriest. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 6, 2005. On January 10, 2005, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Janice Farrell. Respondent was presenting a lesson on perimeters and surface areas to 22 students. The lesson was disorganized, and there was an "air of confusion" in the class. Many students were being unruly and exhibiting off-task behavior. Therefore, not much learning was taking place. Respondent still did not meet performance standards in domains II and IV that had been previously identified. He also failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators not identified in the kick-off observation of October 19, 2004, and, therefore, not the subject of Respondent's 90-day performance probation or this Recommended Order. Respondent caused inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The learners were instructed to complete a "bellringer" activity, i.e., an activity that is used at the beginning of the class period to engage the students in learning as soon as they enter the room. Although they were instructed to complete it, eight of the 22 students did not receive a bellringer worksheet. Students were asking for materials and attempting the activity unsuccessfully on their own. Respondent appeared unaware of the problem Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior and disengagement from learning throughout the lesson. One student continuously called out Respondent's name, louder and louder, for five minutes. Students talked and copied each other's answers. While a student walked around stamping the other students' agenda books, they became off-task. A group of three students at a back table remained off-task throughout the lesson, talking, copying each other's answers, and throwing papers. Respondent did not redirect any of these students until the last five minutes of the class. Respondent failed to monitor the whole class effectively. When he went to the back of the room to address a tardy student without a pass, he turned his back on the other 21 students who changed seats, threw papers at each other, and hit each other with rulers. Respondent did nothing to redirect his students. He failed to make the purpose or importance of the learning tasks clear to the students. He did not give a rationale for the bellringer activity, which consisted of answering questions about perimeters and areas of geometric shapes. He also gave the students inaccurate information. He incorrectly calculated the perimeter of a square as 3+3+3+3=15. DePriest and Farrell met with Respondent to review the observation. Farrell made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent's PIP required him to complete self- assessment activities through the PACES website. He was to watch vignettes provided by the website in order to understand what the PACES indicators required of him. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 11, 2005. Because Respondent's second observation within the performance probation period was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether Respondent had corrected his deficiencies. Principal DePriest performed that observation on February 22, 2005. On that day, management of the learning environment and classroom discipline were non-existent. Respondent was presenting a lesson on geometric shapes to 18 students. While he did have instructions written on the board, there were still the same kinds of delays seen previously, and the students were still not engaged in learning. Overall, the class environment was chaotic. One-third to one- half of the class was off-task at any given time. The class was completely disorganized; the students were not engaged; the students did not pay any attention to Respondent, and very little learning took place. Each time supplies were distributed, commotion resulted. When colored paper was distributed so that the students could trace the shapes, they got into arguments over the different colors, negotiated the trading of colors, and asked Respondent for different colors. When rulers were passed out, the students were not instructed to use them to draw the geometric shapes. Some had already drawn the shapes freehand. Others were dueling with the rulers. Some tore the shapes, rather than waiting until they received scissors. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II as identified in the kick-off observation. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent spent 10-11 minutes taking roll and reprimanding tardy students. There were inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. Respondent allowed students to talk and distract others. Students were not paying attention. Respondent accepted a phone call and made a phone call during the class. He failed to monitor the off-task behavior caused by the manner in which supplies were distributed and failed to redirect the students, including while they argued about paper, scissors, and rulers. DePriest notified Respondent on February 23, 2005, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation period and that DePriest would recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent's employment be terminated. On that same day, DePriest transmitted such a memorandum. On March 9, the Superintendent notified Respondent that the Superintendent would recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract for Respondent's failure to correct his noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation. Petitioner has met all procedural requirements and statutory time frames. The FCAT was administered to Florida students in late- February to early-March, 2005. Petitioner received Respondent's students' scores on May 17 and the district-wide FCAT results on May 19, 2005, the day before the final hearing in this cause. The district as a whole showed "tremendous" progress over the prior year. Even though Redland is a "low-performing" school, it likewise showed progress over the prior year in reading and mathematics. Respondent's students, however, failed to follow this trend. Petitioner does not use a teacher's current students' FCAT scores in assessing a teacher's performance because the scores are released too late in the school year. PACES, however, addresses student performance, as statutorily required. Where a teacher's students are observed as being noisy throughout lessons, being confused, not paying attention, and being given erroneous lesson content, there is a clear lack of student performance, and they are not engaged in learning.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent failed to correct his performance deficiencies and terminating Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 13, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 29th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Rudolph F. Crew, Ed.D, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent’s professional service contract as a teacher for unsatisfactory performance or incompetence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first employed Respondent on August 23, 1977, in a paraprofessional position as a bilingual tutor. While so employed, Respondent attended Nova University working toward a degree in early education. She earned her degree in 1989 and received a teaching certificate in elementary education and English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Respondent’s first instructional assignment was as an ESOL teacher at the start of the 1989-90 school year. She did not have a classroom, but taught as a pullout teacher. She remained in this position for four years. Respondent was first assigned to a regular classroom in the 1993-94 school year when her ESOL program was terminated. She taught a combined first and second grade class for the 1993- school year and then taught a second grade class for the 1994- school year. On March 1, 1994, Susan Griesinger became the principal of Tice Elementary School. There was little substantive contact between Dr. Griesinger and Respondent during the 1993-94 school year. During the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger twice observed and evaluated Respondent’s classroom performance. The evaluations were satisfactory. The Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of a second-grade mathematics class on November 17, 1994, contains numerous indications that Respondent has adequately organized and presented the instructional material. Student misbehavior was not an issue during the class. Dr. Griesinger concludes the evaluation by writing: “Your enthusiasm is catching! Many concepts in one lesson. Students enjoyed the clocks.” Dr. Griesinger prepared a second Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of another second-grade mathematics class on February 27, 1995. This evaluation is much the same as the first and concludes: “This was a hard concept. I am glad you gave the children actual shapes.” On March 6, 1995, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. Respondent received satisfactory grades in all 40 categories. These grades are “Effective level of performance,” which is the only satisfactory grading option on the form. However, for two categories for which Respondent received satisfactory grades, Dr. Griesinger noted the need for “Focus for development/feedback.” Falling under “Presentation of Subject Matter,” the two categories were “Teaches a systematic process for developing academic values” and “Demonstrates knowledge of subject matter.” The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen has tried very hard this year to reach all students. She has a positive attitude.” Between the preparation of the Performance Assessment and the end of the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger and her assistant principal, Holly Bell, began receiving parent complaints about Respondent. The parents questioned whether Respondent could control her class. When Dr. Griesinger asked Respondent about the complaints, Respondent attributed the problems to a handful of misbehaving students. The following school year, Dr. Griesinger observed Respondent’s teaching more closely to see if there was a problem. Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and the guidance counselor conducted several informal observations of Respondent’s classroom. During the summer, Tice Elementary School had received a grant to hire an outside teaching consultant to train teachers in peer coaching. Dr. Griesinger asked the consultant, Kaye Sutcliff, to observe Respondent and make suggestions. Ms. Sutcliff observed Respondent and suggested that she find other employment. On October 24, 1995, Dr. Griesinger sent a memorandum to Respondent confirming a meeting that they had had the prior day. The memorandum memorializes a concern with the “lack of classroom management we see this year” and states that Respondent is not consistent with discipline. The memorandum also mentions another concern as to how Respondent “present[s] your content to the students.” The memorandum elaborates: Last year I had a difficult time following your lesson when I came in to do your observation. I talked with you about some things you could have done differently. You need to be very specific when you are introducing new concepts. The memorandum concludes that Dr. Griesinger will be doing formal and informal observations to assist Respondent. The memorandum restates that Dr. Griesinger has asked Respondent to work closely with her coach and video and audio tape her lessons to see how she can improve and make her content clearer. The memorandum tells Respondent that Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and Lynn Pottorf will work with Respondent to try to help her. Ms. Pottorf was the Elementary Generalist Coordinator employed in the District office. On January 4, 1996, Dr. Griesinger wrote a memorandum to Dr. Madeline Doran, Director of Personnel, asking that she place Respondent in the Intensive Assistance Program as soon as possible due to “extreme difficulty with classroom management, curriculum content and lesson delivery.” Acting on the advice of Dr. Griesinger and Dr. Doran, Dr. Jerry Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, informed Respondent by letter dated January 24, 1996, that he was placing her in the eight-week Intensive Assistance Program. As part of the program, Dr. Doran formed an assistance team consisting of Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, Ronalee Ashby, and Ms. Pottorf. Ms. Ashby is the District Coordinator of Personnel Services. The purpose of the team is to help the teacher as much as possible through observing her classroom teaching and discussing their findings with the teacher at weekly meetings. The team reviews the teacher’s performance and recommends further action to Dr. Doran. The Intensive Assistance Program informs the teacher that, based on input from the team and Dr. Doran, Petitioner may determine that the teacher’s performance is adequate, extend the Intensive Assistance Program for another eight weeks, recommend reassignment to a more suitable position, withhold recommendation for an annual reappointment, determine that the teacher’s performance is inadequate and recommend dismissal or recommend acceptance of the teacher’s resignation. On January 30, 1996, Ms. Ashby had a meeting with Respondent during which Ms. Ashby explained the Intensive Assistance Program in detail. Respondent completed an interview form for the Intensive Assistance Program. In the form, Respondent noted no particular problems interfering with her teaching. She stated that she was “okay with subj[ect],” but had some problems gathering materials. She mentioned two students out of 20 in her class who presented behavioral problems and one student who presented academic problems. She stated that she would like to get the students more involved. She stated that her general health was “good--some headaches,” and she denied having any nonschool problems adversely affecting her teaching. On March 20, 1996, Jo Ellen Kessler, Coordinator of Curriculum Services, conducted a two-hour observation, concluding that she never saw Respondent provide instruction for the students. Ms. Kessler stated: Dr. [Griesinger] asked that I spend at least one hour in the classroom. I spent approximately two hours there because I kept waiting for Ms. Hernandez to provide instruction for the students. During the time I was in the classroom, there was no review of any material. There was no introduction, no initial instruction. No clear directions were given for doing the activities on the chalkboard. The students were given no reason for learning. There was no motivation for learning, no personal connections made. There were no instructional materials prepared for them to use during the lesson, other than the things written on the chalkboard--certainly not the best way to engage students. There was no evidence of any materials prepared for students of differing abilities. There was no instruction given to help any of them learn the skills involved. . . . The children who behaved nicely were not really acknowledged for their attention or behavior. No specific praise was given to any student. Most of the well behaved children were not given an opportunity to be involved in the tasks. They sat with nothing to do. The students were given no clear expectation of what their behaviors should be. They had no limits set, no idea of what was acceptable and what was not. The students were not engaged in any of the tasks. They hung over their desks, put their heads down and appeared quite bored. In summary, the students did almost nothing for a two-hour period. The teacher was not teaching and was completely ineffective in managing their behavior. They were not involved in meaningful review or practice. Their behavior would be much improved if they had well-planned instruction and materials and if they were given meaningful learning tasks. The children in the room appeared to be bright and willing to learn, but they were not given the opportunity to do so. On March 22, 1996, Dr. Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, sent a letter to Respondent giving her official notice, pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, that her performance was “unsatisfactory” and, if the deficiencies were not corrected next year, he would recommend that the School Board terminate her at the close of the 1996-97 school year. On March 25, 1996, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. In contrast to the preceding year, Respondent received only four satisfactory grades, all in conformance to school and district rules. Nearly all of the other grades were “Unacceptable level of performance observed.” The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen needs to improve drastically in all areas.” On the same day, Ms. Bell had to go to Respondent’s classroom to restore order. Hearing Respondent and students shouting from outside the door, Ms. Bell found seven students out of their seats and the remaining students seated with nothing to do. The prior day a substitute teacher had had no problem with the class. On or about April 4, 1996, Respondent went on medical leave for the rest of the school year due to anxiety and menstrual problems. At the hearing, Respondent produced little, if any, evidence concerning the onset of her medical problems or their effect on her teaching. The preponderance of the evidence proves that demands that Respondent improve her classroom performance preceded the medical problems, although Respondent’s complaints of anxiety may have been exacerbated by these demands. Dr. Griesinger hired a substitute teacher for the remainder of the school year. The substitute teacher had no problem teaching Respondent’s class for the next two months. Respondent returned to work at the start of the 1996-97 school year with clearance from her physician. She was assigned a second grade class. Separate observations on September 4, 1996, by Dr. Griesinger and Ms. Bell record a boy barking like a dog in the back row during class without notice from Respondent, a boy sleeping so soundly that Respondent twice could not awaken him and gave up trying with a shrug of her shoulders, and motivated students losing interest after Respondent never called on them despite having their hands up for long periods of time. In all cases of misbehavior, Respondent imposed no consequences. During an observation on September 5, 1996, Respondent repeatedly asked the class what mountains look like. While she was doing so, one boy, who had been in and out of his seat for five minutes, managed to get the teacher’s manual off Respondent’s desk, give it to the observer, and tell the observer that this is where Respondent gets all her questions. At the same time, a girl, who was playing while in her seat, made two trips to the bathroom in 30 minutes, spending the second visit playing in the bathroom, turning the fan on and off. After teaching from August 20 through September 12, 1996, Respondent again went on medical leave. Dr. Griesinger hired a new teacher to take over the class. On October 3, 1996, Ms. Ashby sent a memorandum to the then-counsel for Petitioner advising him that Respondent’s classroom performance has continued to deteriorate and that he should review the file for proceeding with a predetermination hearing for “incompetency,” noting that Petitioner had given her notification last spring that she had “one year and six weeks to improve.” On October 21, 1996, Dr. Griesinger sent a letter to Respondent confirming their conversation of October 7 in which Respondent informed Dr. Griesinger that she would be taking the year off for medical reasons. The letter asks Respondent to call Dr. Griesinger prior to October 25 if this is incorrect. Respondent did not call Dr. Griesinger in response to the October 21 letter. Instead, a few days before Christmas vacation was to start, Respondent contacted Dr. Griesinger and told her that she would be returning to teach when school started again in January. Dr. Griesinger justifiably decided not to disturb the second grade class that the replacement teacher was handling quite well. Dr. Griesinger instead formed a new fourth grade class and assigned it to Respondent. Respondent began teaching the class on the first day of school after vacation, which was January 6, 1997. On January 9, 1997, Ms. Pottorf observed Respondent’s fourth grade social studies class. She found that the students were well-behaved and on-task for only about 10 minutes. The lesson was “disjointed,” and Respondent displayed an obvious unfamiliarity with the subject matter, as evidenced, for instance, by her inability to find a definition for “pioneer” in the text or her incorrect assumption that the Miami Indians were a tribe in Florida, not Ohio. She referred to the two or three students who had read the lesson as “her friends who knew the answers,” excluding the remainder of the class. Respondent failed to guide students’ responses, allowing the same answers and silly answers to continue. Unaware of the time, Respondent allowed the lesson to end without review or conclusion. The next class was reading. Respondent immediately lost the attention of the class by engaging in a discussion with a child about the seating arrangements. For no good reason, Respondent required the class to cover material that had been covered earlier in the week. She displayed a poor command of the reading material. For instance, telling the students that “errors” were to be called “challenges,” Respondent proceeded to use the words, “error” or “mistake” throughout the lesson, each time adding that “We are to call them challenges.” Randomly checking workbooks, Respondent failed to note which students had done their work and which had not. After a student was left without a reading partner, Respondent said she would be his partner, but she never returned to be his partner. When the students became loud and off-task, Respondent required them to call out the reading words in unison with her arm signals. She made them repeat words numerous times, to the obvious irritation of the students. After one child asked her not to do this, and, in response to Respondent’s inquiry, the rest of the class asked to be spared the repetition, Respondent agreed not to continue asking them to repeat the same word. But she continued to do so. At one point, she made them start over because they did not show enough energy, as the task became filler for the period, which ended without review or conclusion. On the same date, Ms. Bell did an observation of Respondent. She noted that the majority of the students were off-task. Respondent repeatedly tried to restore order by telling the students to look at the rules, but there were no rules posted anywhere in the classroom. On January 10, 1997, Respondent enlisted the students’ assistance in adopting classroom rules. A list of seven rules was disorganized, with some rules encompassing all of the others. The students became more restless when Respondent asked about consequences. No one answered her questions about consequences as the process became more disordered. Respondent evidently did not understand the point system that she had developed, leaving the whole system confusing and unmanageable. Later, a child privately asked to be Respondent’s helper. Respondent announced this request to the class, but did not otherwise acknowledge it. Respondent moved into a lesson on pronouns, but could not define a pronoun. Abruptly leaving this lesson after only three minutes, Respondent presented a new lesson on narrative writing, which she explained in one rambling sentence interspersed with frequent allusions to the rules and consequences that they had just worked out. Few students were on-task by this time. Respondent taught through February 6, 1997. At that time, Petitioner suspended her for her poor classroom performance. Respondent’s three major problems in the classroom were that she did not know her material, could not teach, and could not control the behavior of her students. She wasted time in transitions, such as to lunch, physical education, or taking attendance. She missed many opportunities to reinforce good behavior and frequently reinforced bad behavior by ignoring visible defiance or even unwittingly rewarding it. She confused students as often as she instructed them and displayed no idea of how she could explain content to her students. She sometimes displayed an uncertain grasp of even elementary materials. The result of these deficiencies is that Respondent impeded learning by repeatedly failing to communicate with and relate to the students to the point that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. There is evidence of effective instances of teaching by Respondent. Undoubtedly, Respondent had some days that were better than others. However, Respondent’s performance as a teacher was so bad so often that she was ineffective and incompetent as a teacher. Numerous individuals observed her work in the classroom and found it seriously deficient. Ms. Ashby ultimately opined that, after a long career in education, Respondent, whom she described as a “horrible teacher,” was “one of the worst teachers I ever worked with.” Respondent tried to show at the hearing that her teaching problems were the result of her health problems. As already noted, the evidence shows that her teaching problems preceded the emergence of her health problems. However, even if the health problems preceded the teaching problems, Respondent, with the approval of her physician, returned to the classroom in January 1997 and performed abysmally. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that her health problems, or other mitigating factors, induced Respondent (and her physician) to decide that she could return to the classroom in January. The impact of her poor performance was dramatic, as the learning of her students slowed and even ended upon her return to the classroom. Respondent argues that Dr. Griesinger and others in the administration were biased against her for reasons that are unclear from the record. Although Dr. Griesinger decided by no later than January 1997 that Respondent was not going to be able to eliminate her performance deficiencies, this determination was supported by the record and was not indicative of bias. Dr. Griesinger’s determination did not distort her observations, which were corroborated by several other individuals. Respondent understandably draws support from Dr. Griesinger’s initial positive evaluation. This evaluation was more likely due to a combination of her carelessness and optimism, as she converted an evaluative instrument to a device designed to encourage and promote one of her classroom teachers. Most likely, Respondent was ill-suited to assume the responsibilities of a classroom teacher when she began teaching second grade in the fall of 1993, but may have initially escaped the serious problems that later befell her due to a combination of factors, such as the youth of her students, extraordinary effort of what was effectively a new teacher, and inattentiveness of the school administration.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated due to two years of unsatisfactory and unacceptable performance.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, the Respondent, Robert Nolan, Jr., was employed as a seventh and eighth grade math teacher at Rockway Middle School ("Rockway"). Nolan has been employed by the School Board as a math teacher since the 1987/88 school year. The School Board has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, V., which provides: Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State and District Boards, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by the Rules of the State Department of Education. Article XI of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: Classroom teachers are required to develop weekly lesson plans which shall reflect one or more objectives, activities, homework assignments, and a way of monitoring student progress. Principals or supervising administrators may suggest, but not require, a particular format or organization. Only where a principal has documented deficiencies through classroom observation, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), may a teacher be required to use a set form in preparation of lesson plans. Article XIII, Introduction, B., of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: The parties agree to the continuation of a developmental approach to improving teaching performance, using the TADS. In accordance with Florida Statutes, no disciplinary action shall be taken, based on incompetence in the absence of documentation and procedures required by TADS. Article XIII, Section 2, of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: Any teacher whose performance is assessed unacceptable in any observation category shall be entitled to a plan of professional growth practices which shall include reason- able timeframes for implementation. . . Teachers shall follow the growth practices required. Failure to implement required professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was required shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Contract. Where an administrator has substantiated, through two formal observations, as stipulated above, that teaching is unaccep- table in any of the observation categories, DCPS may utilize diagnostic tests and assessment techniques to identify teaching weaknesses and strengths and to assist in selecting appropriate professional growth practices to improve teaching performance. . . Where teaching deficiencies are diagnosed as a result of tests or assessment techniques, DCPS shall require professional growth practices which shall be obligatory on the teacher. Respondent's employment history with the Petitioner includes numerous instances of unsatisfactory and deficient classroom performance reflecting an unwillingness or inability to fulfill his teaching duties and responsibilities. On June 2, 1993, Carole Abrams ("Abrams"), an assistant principal at Rockway at the time, reviewed Respondent's grade book and noticed that Respondent did not have complete grades for the four nine-week grading periods; Respondent was placed on notice that he was required to have a completed grade book by the end of the school year. Even though Respondent was directed to complete his grade book by the end of the school year and was offered assistance so that Respondent may complete his grade book, Respondent failed to complete his grade book as directed. On October 13, 1993, Abrams formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unacceptable in three categories of the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"): preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and techniques of instruction. At the time of the observation on October 13, 1993, Abrams concluded that Respondent was not following a particular lesson plan. When Abrams asked to see Respondent's lesson plans during the observation on October 13, 1993, Respondent produced lesson plans that were two years old and belonged to another teacher. During the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent appeared confused, spent the entire lesson on one mathematical problem, was not able to demonstrate to his students how to complete the problem mathematically, and was unable to accurately answer students' questions regarding the math problem. Respondent was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction due to his inability to answer students' questions, to demonstrate the mathematical process for arriving at the correct answer, or to address the necessary topics of the lesson that Respondent was attempting to give. As a result of Respondent's unacceptable classroom performance as demonstrated by the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent was placed on prescription and was provided with assistance and activities for his performance improvement. Part of Respondent's prescription required that Respondent provide weekly lesson plans, but Respondent failed to do so, even after receiving memoranda from Abrams reminding Respondent of this requirement. On December 7, 1993, Respondent's classroom performance was observed by Patricia Duncan ("Duncan"), another assistant principal at Rockway; Duncan found Respondent unsatisfactory in the area of assessment techniques. Duncan found that Respondent's assessment of students' work was deficient because the grades in Respondent's grade book did not correlate with the days that class was in session, nor with work contained in the students' folders. During the December 7, 1993 observation, Duncan also noted that Respondent did not have the required work folders for some of the students listed in Respondent's classroom. In an effort to assist Respondent, Duncan provided Respondent with a prescription for Respondent's performance improvement which required that Respondent produce his grade book and student folders to Duncan for review and seek the assistance of the math department chairperson. On December 15, 1993, a mid-year Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), was held with Respondent and Jorge Sotolongo ("Sotolongo"), the principal of Rockway at the time, to address the results of Respondent's observations, Respondent's unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to timely complete activities and assignments designed to help him reach an acceptable level of performance. At the CFR on December 15, 1993, Respondent was advised that if he had to remain on prescription, he would receive an unacceptable annual evaluation at the end of the 1993/94 school year. Although Respondent already had been reminded of the requirement that he complete his prescription, on February 4, 1994, Respondent again had to be notified of his failure to complete his activities and assignments as required by Respondent's prescription. On April 12, 1994, Sotolongo formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's performance unsatisfactory and unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; and assessment techniques. During the observation on April 12, 1994, Sotolongo noted: that Respondent did not have lesson plans for the class Respondent was teaching; that Respondent's grade book showed that Respondent did not have the required two grades per week for each student; that Respondent had failed to note assignments contained in the students' work folders in his grade book; and that Respondent had failed to properly identify students in his grade book. Including the observation on April 12, 1994, Respondent had been formally observed four times during the 1993/94 school year, and Respondent's classroom performance had been found unacceptable in three out of the four observations. (An observation by Sotolongo on February 10, 1994, scored Respondent's performance as satisfactory.) Since Respondent had received three unacceptable observations during the 1993/94 school year, on May 5, 1994, Sotolongo requested that the School Board perform an external review of Respondent's classroom performance. On May 16, 1994, an external observation of Respondent's performance was conducted by: Billy Birnie, the School Board's Regional Director of Instructional Support; and the principal, Sotolongo. The external observation of Respondent's performance concluded with Respondent being rated, by both observers, unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques. The Respondent questioned whether Birnie and Sotolongo improperly collaberated in completing their TADS observation reports on the observation on May 16, 1994. But both explained that their reports were completed separately, after which they conferred, as contemplated (and, indeed, required) by the TADS procedures. There was no evidence of any improprieties. During the external observation on May 16, 1994, Respondent failed to, and did not even attempt to, follow the lesson plans he had prepared for that day. In addition, the Respondent's lecture was not directed towards any of the objectives listed in Respondent's lesson plans, and Respondent was unable to properly present a lesson on the metric system. A review of Respondent's student work folders during the classroom observation on May 16, 1994, revealed that Respondent did not employ a variety of test formats as required by TADS; rather, Respondent used only those tests contained in the student textbook. As a result of Respondent's unsatisfactory performance and unacceptable observation of May 16, 1994, Respondent was provided with additional activities to assist him in improving his performance. Respondent failed to complete the required assignments and activities related to his unacceptable external observation of May 16, 1994. On June 8, 1994, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's continuing unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to complete assigned activities, and Respondent's annual evaluation. In accordance with TADS, Respondent also was placed on prescription in the area of professional responsibility due to his failure to comply with directives regarding his assigned activities and his failure to complete the assigned activities. At the CFR on June 8, 1994, Respondent was informed that due to his unsatisfactory performance, he would stay on prescription for the remainder of the 1993/94 school year and that he would start the 1994/95 school year on prescription. By the end of the 1993/94 school year, Respondent had been formally observed five times and Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in four out of the five observations. On June 8, 1994, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, which reflected that Respondent had been rated unacceptable in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; assessment techniques; and professional responsibility. On June 17, 1994, Respondent was notified by certified letter that, because he had received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was entitled to request a review of the evaluation. Respondent started the 1994/95 school year on prescription. On October 11, 1994, Respondent was again formally observed by Sotolongo and, in accordance with TADS, was found unacceptable in knowledge of the subject matter and techniques of instruction. During the observation on October 11, 1994, Respondent was unable to provide a correct answer to a mathematical word problem even after resorting to a calculator; the incorrect answer to the problem remained on the board for the duration of the class. Respondent also was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction in the observation on October 11, 1994. Respondent failed to provide feedback to students who gave incorrect answers to the math problems being discussed. Respondent was prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming his deficiencies as identified in the classroom observation on October 11, 1994. He was directed to complete these activities by November 4, 1994. By November 22, 1994, Respondent still had not completed the activities. In a further effort to assist Respondent with his performance improvement, Respondent was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program after Sotolongo learned that Respondent had been arrested for possession of cocaine. On December 1, 1994, almost a year after Duncan first formally observed Respondent's performance, Duncan again observed Respondent's classroom performance. Duncan found Respondent unacceptable and unsatisfactory under TADS in knowledge of the subject matter after Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson involving graphs (instead giving inaccurate information to his students.) On December 7, 1994, a mid-year CFR was held between Respondent and Carmen Marinelli ("Marinelli"), the new principal at Rockway, to discuss Respondent's two unacceptable observations during the 1994/95 school year and Respondent's failure to complete the prescription plan activities assigned him, and to offer Respondent assistance in remediating his unsatisfactory performance. At the CFR on December 7, 1994, Respondent again was reminded that completion of his assigned activities was part of his professional responsibility, and Respondent was advised that if he did not remediate all of his deficiencies by April, 1995, his Professional Service Contract (PSC) would not be renewed. On February 13, 1995, Marinelli performed a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and, in accordance with TADS, found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; and knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent was again prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies identified in the classroom observation on February 13, 1995. During the observation on February 13, 1995, Marinelli noted that Respondent did not have lesson plans for his class and that Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson which required the use of fractions. As a result of Respondent having been formally observed three times during the 1994/95 school year and because Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in all three observations, Marinelli requested another external observation. On March 27, 1995, Marinelli and Dr. Hector Hirigoyen, a regional mathematics coordinator, conducted an external observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques. During the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent's lesson plans did not reflect any planned activities for his class, and Respondent's grade book did not contain any grades for a three-week period. Respondent also gave students incorrect information regarding a mathematics vocabulary lesson. After the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent was prescribed still more activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies observed. He also was offered additional assistance from the district supervisor, assistant principal, or department chairperson. By letter dated March 28, 1995, Respondent was notified by the Superintendent of Schools that the deficiencies noted in Respondent's performance during the 1993/94 school year had not been corrected and that the Superintendent was recommending that Respondent not be issued a new PSC. Additionally, the Superintendent's letter of March 28, 1995, notified Respondent that assessment of Respondent's performance would continue for the remainder of Respondent's contract. On May 3, 1995, Marinelli held a CFR with Respondent to discuss the status of his prescription, to remind Respondent that if he remained on prescription he may not be reappointed, and to review Respondent's interim annual evaluation of unacceptable performance. On May 12, 1995, Martha Boden, an outside observer, conducted a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's techniques of instruction to be unsatisfactory. Boden cited Respondent's failure to allow students to answer questions and failure to determine whether students understood the lesson being given as the reasons for Respondent's unacceptable performance. During the observation on May 12, 1995, when the school year was close to ending, the outside observer also found that Respondent had only two grades per student in his grade book. On June 9, 1995, Marinelli held another CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during the 1994/95 school year and to advise Respondent that, since he had not remediated his deficiencies, he would receive an overall unacceptable annual evaluation, and that his PSC would not be renewed. On June 9, 1995, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1994/95 school year in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; techniques of instruction; and professional responsibility. The Respondent has argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of offense taken at his expression of "concern with the inadequacies of the textbooks that he was directed to use in his math classes." This argument is rejected. First, the Respondent's testimony on the textbook argument consisted of speculation that one assistant principal who evaluated him (Carole Abrams) might have taken offense when the Respondent went "over her head" and took direct action to have copies of textbooks delivered to the school. According to the Respondent's testimony, this argument would not apply to any of the other educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory. In addition, the Respondent did not testify that any offense was taken even by Abrams at the Respondent's insinuation that the textbooks were inadequate. There was no evidence that the textbooks were inadequate; rather, the evidence was that they were new and that the Respondent wanted to use his old textbooks because he was more accustomed to and comfortable with them. The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of envy on account of his successful application for grants from the School Board. Although this argument is based on testimony from the Respondent, that testimony is rejected. It is not found that any, much less all, of the educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory were envious of the Respondent's grants, or that any of their evaluations were affected by the Respondent's grant applications or grants. The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of TADS's inflexibility and inability to fairly evaluate the Respondent's performance under his grants. However, the Respondent's grants had no impact on lesson planning or grading, or on the evaluation of his performance in those areas under TADS. (Indeed, in response to criticism that he had no lesson plans, the Respondent produced another teacher's lesson plans from a time period that preceded the Respondent's grant by two years and claimed that he was following them. As for grading, the Respondent already had been cited under TADS for failing to maintain sufficient grades in his grade book during the 1991/1992 school year, which was before he started implementing his first grant.) As for teaching techniques, another area in which the Respondent consistently performed poorly, it is found that TADS was flexible enough to allow for a fair evaluation of the Respondent's performance under his grants. TADS was specifically formulated to allow for any type of effective teaching and for a variety of teaching methods, and the areas observed under the techniques of instruction category would not conflict with an individual teacher's teaching style or method. The problem was not that the Respondent was teaching under a grant; the problem was that he was not teaching well, grant or no grant. (Indeed, for most of the time the Respondent claimed to have been utilizing special teaching techniques under the grant to "teach down" to students in the "At Risk Program" to prevent them from dropping out, he testified that he actually was teaching mainstream students; the problem was the Respondent's inadequacies, not his students.) The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that he did not get the assistance to which he was entitled so as to improve his unsatisfactory performance. But the proof of the School Board's attempts to assist the Respondent was overwhelming. Indeed, in the face of the evidence, at final hearing, the Respondent testified to the exact opposite of what he then argued in his Proposed Recommended Order--he complained that he was given too much assistance, which hindered his attempts to improve his performance. 1/ Other arguments the Respondent attempted in the course of his testimony were not even argued in his Proposed Recommended Order. The Respondent testified that some of the people from whom he sought assistance seemed afraid to help, but he did not identify who these people were, and it is not found that anyone declined to help the Respondent out of fear of repercussions. He also testified that he was unable to take advantage of planning periods to prepare lesson plans because he was required to cover for other teachers who had to miss classes to coach softball, but softball season was in the spring and could not excuse the Respondent's failure to prepare lesson plans in the fall and winter. The Respondent also testified that he tried to avoid having to cover for teachers while he was on prescription and that the persistence of these teachers indicated that administrators had overridden the Respondent; but neither the teachers nor the admin- istrators were identified, and it is not found that any administrator required the Respondent to cover classes for those teachers while he was on prescription. The Respondent also testified that the grant required him to do extra work arranging field trips, leaving him less time for lesson planning, teaching and completing prescrip- tions; but, in the 1994/1995 school year, the Respondent used some of his grant money to hire a "para-professional" to help him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter the final order: (1) that Robert Nolan, Jr., not be issued a new Professional Service Contract; (2) that Robert Nolan, Jr., be dismissed as an employee of The School Board of Dade County, Florida; and (3) that Robert Nolan's suspension of April 12, 1995, be sustained and that he receive no back pay for the period of this suspension. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1996.
