The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent's suspension should be upheld and whether his employment with Petitioner should be terminated, as set forth in Petitioner's action letter dated August 21, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board 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, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2002). At all times material hereto, Mr. Moore was employed full-time with the School Board as a paraprofessional at Robert Renick Educational Center (Renick) and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board in accordance with Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2002). The UTD Contract, between the School Board and UTD, also governs the terms and conditions of Mr. Moore's employment. In April 1977, Mr. Moore began his employment with the School Board and was assigned to Renick. He remained at Renick as a paraprofessional through February 9, 2003. In December 1996, prior to beginning his employment with the School Board, Mr. Moore was charged with possession of stolen property and driving with a suspended license and an expired registration. A few months later, on February 20, 1997, Mr. Moore completed an application for employment with the School Board and indicated on the application that he had no criminal charges pending. However, at the time that he made application for employment, the charges of December 1996 were pending. Mr. Moore does not contest several performance problems and deficiencies for the period October 19, 1998 through March 10, 2002. By memorandum dated October 27, 1998, Mr. Moore was notified by the assistant principal, James DeWitt, that he violated School Board policy on October 19, 1998, by allowing a student to be in possession of the key to his classroom. Mr. DeWitt advised Mr. Moore that a reoccurrence of the violation would lead to a conference-for-the-record. By memorandum dated October 17, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that he had arrived late at school that same day without notifying the main office of his tardiness in accordance with the UTD Contract. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the established work hours and advised Mr. Moore that further failure to adhere to his work schedule would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 1, 2000, he (Mr. Moore) was playing a game on his computer while the students were taking a test even though he was required to monitor the test; and that his (Mr. Moore's) failure to supervise and monitor the test resulted in a student writing the answers in the wrong section of the test. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that, among other things, his lack of supervision would not be tolerated and that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 5, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by the principal, Eugenia Smith, that, among other things, he was on leave without authorization for 17 days of the 2000-2001 school year, from February 8, 2001 through March 5, 2001. Ms. Smith directed Mr. Moore to, within three (3) days of the date of the memorandum, provide his intended date of return or resign from employment with the School Board. By memorandum dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on December 5, 2001, because of his (Mr. Moore's) lack of supervision, a student pushed the emergency call button twice even though no emergency existed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 8, 2002, Ms. Smith notified Mr. Moore that he had been tardy for several days, specifying the days of tardiness. On March 8, 2002, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore to address his tardiness, including noncompliance with verbal and written directives regarding his tardiness. Also present were, Ms. Smith, Mr. DeWitt, and a UTD representative. At the conference-for-the-record Mr. Moore was given specific directives regarding future tardiness, which were to be to work on time and to adhere to procedures in the UTD contract. A summary of the conference-for-the-record dated March 10, 2002, was prepared and was subsequently signed by Mr. Moore. By memorandum dated November 8, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 7, 2002, Mr. Moore's personal telephone was confiscated because it had been used in the classroom as an extension of the school's telephone system. By memorandum dated November 13, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that his (Mr. Moore's) use of his personal telephone as an extension of the school's telephone system was a violation of the School Board's policy prohibiting telephones in the classroom unless approved by the administration. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to School Board policies and advised Mr. Moore that failure to do so would result in disciplinary action. Mr. Moore does not contest violating the School Board's policy regarding the use of his personal telephone in the classroom. By memorandum dated January 17, 2003, Mr. DeWitt notified Mr. Moore that, on January 22, 2003, he (Mr. Moore) left the school for approximately one and one-half hour, from approximately 11:50 a.m. to 2:20 a.m., without signing-out as required by the School Board's policy. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the scheduled work hours and advised (Mr. Moore) that his failure to so adhere would result in further disciplinary action. On January 22, 2003, Mr. Moore was arrested based on an outstanding warrant for the December 1996 charges previously indicated. Renick is a special center for emotionally handicapped and severely emotionally disturbed students. The student's have emotional problems, which interfere with their ability to learn. The teachers, including paraprofessionals, at Renick are specially trained to deal with the behavior problems of the students. The School Board adheres to a graduated system of discipline for students, which consists of the following: first, student conferences are held, then parent conferences, and then parent-teacher conferences; and after the conferences, indoor suspension, then detention, and, lastly, outdoor suspension. Also, located in each classroom is a call button to call security for assistance if needed. The use of profanity and corporal punishment is prohibited by School Board rules. As a paraprofessional with the School Board for several years, Mr. Moore knew or should have known the School Board's graduated system of discipline, rules, and policies. Training is provided for teachers, including paraprofessionals, in the management of students at Renick, who are misbehaving. Also, in-house workshops are provided. The training is "crisis management," which was formerly safe physical management. In crisis management, physical restraint is the last resort; interventions are used instead. A student's parent must consent in writing for the use of physical restraint; however, even without consent, physical restraint may be used for situations that do not de-escalate. If physical restraint is used, the situation must be documented and the student's parent must be notified. One intervention is a prearranged intervention in which the student and teacher agree on a technique to be used by the teacher to make the student aware that his/her behavior is escalating. The prearranged intervention may be, for instance, a pulling of the student's ear. If the prearrange intervention fails to de-escalate the student's behavior, another intervention referred to as proximity control may be used. In this technique, the student feels the teacher's presence by the teacher moving towards the student, which interrupts the student's behavior. If no interventions, whether verbal or non-verbal, de- escalates the student's behavior, which begins to get out-of- control, forms of physical restraint may be used, as a last resort. One form of physical restraint is for the teacher to hold the student with his/her hand to communicate to that student that his/her behavior is escalating, with safety being the primary issue. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may resort to a more restrictive restraint such as the cradle. In using this technique, both the student and teacher are standing, with the student having his/her back to the teacher, and the teacher holding the student, with safety being the primary issue. Again, the teacher is attempting to have the student realize that his/her behavior is escalating. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may take the student to the floor. One technique used is the cradle assist. In this technique, the student is brought to the floor by the teacher and the student is held by the teacher in a cradle-like position. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher, with the assistance of a colleague, may hold the student to the floor. Using a colleague, assists the student in calming down. Whenever physical restraint is used, the parents of the student are notified. Furthermore, the student is counseled, and the student's file must be documented regarding the use of physical restraint. Mr. Moore received the training as to the interventions and the physical restraints. Furthermore, he attended at least one in-house workshop. Therefore, Mr. Moore had knowledge of the behavior techniques. A past performance problem involving Mr. Moore and a student was documented by a memorandum dated July 24, 1998 from Mr. DeWitt to Mr. Moore. The memorandum addressed "alleged misconduct" by Mr. Moore committed on July 20, 1998, in which Mr. Moore allegedly choked a student, when he was putting the student in time-out, and used inappropriate language by calling the student a "faggot." Although the memorandum indicated that Mr. Moore stated that he may have grabbed the student's neck, the memorandum did not indicate that the allegation was confirmed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to "refrain from using inappropriate procedures and language" while performing his duties. The statement by Mr. Moore showed that he admitted, not denied, that he did take some action with the student. Regarding incidents with students, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges a specific incident, occurring on December 19, 2002, between Mr. Moore and a student, J. G. Allegedly, Mr. Moore told J. G. that he "was going to kill him" and "for him [J. G.] to meet him [Mr. Moore] at the store in five minutes since he [J. G.] was bad, so they could fight"; and that he "was going to make him [J. G.] his girl"; Furthermore, Mr. Moore allegedly called J. G. a "fat bitch." Additionally, Mr. Moore allegedly told another student, X. W., that he would "fuck X. W.'s mother in the grave" and called X. W. a "faggot." Also, Mr. Moore allegedly grabbed another student, I. J., and subsequently, another student, M. S., and pulled their arms behind their backs and pushed them against a wall. Further, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges contains a general allegation of how Mr. Moore treated students, i.e., "Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, pushed students to the ground, picked a student up and slammed him to the floor, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay." As to the general allegation, student D. J. testified regarding Mr. Moore pushing a student to the ground. D. J. testified that he did not want to do his work and attempted to leave the classroom without permission from Mr. Moore; that Mr. Moore would not allow him to leave the room; and that Mr. Moore placed him on the floor, face first, with his (D. J.'s) arms behind his back in a manner that hurt him (D. J.). No one else was in the classroom to witness the alleged incident. No specific time period was provided for the alleged incident. Mr. Moore's testimony did not address this particular incident. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. D. J.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find D. J.'s testimony convincing. Even if Mr. Moore engaged in the physical restraint of D. J., the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. D. J. was attempting to force his way out of the class. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the incident and notify D. J.'s parents that physical restraint was used. Also, as to the general allegation, student M. L. testified regarding picking a student up and slamming the student to the floor. M. L. testified that, except for him, all the other students in the class had completed their work and were in the rear of the classroom with the teacher; that he had just completed his work and was walking to the rear of the class when Mr. Moore walked into the classroom; that Mr. Moore told him that he was out of his seat without permission; and that Mr. Moore picked him up and slammed him to the floor, placing his (Mr. Moore's) knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore testified that M. L. was out of his seat without permission and that M. L. was running in the classroom and would not sit down even though Mr. Moore asked him to sit down and stop running. M. L. admitted that he had been disciplined before for running around in the classroom. Mr. Moore admits that he put M. L. to the floor, which de-escalated the situation, and that he then allowed M. L. to get up. Furthermore, Mr. Moore admits that he did not document the incident and did not notify the parents of M. L. that physical restraint had been used on M. L. No testimony was presented from Mr. Moore's supervising teacher, Jaime Calaf, regarding the incident with M. L. No other testimony was presented. As to the incident with M. L., the only witnesses testifying were M. L. and Mr. Moore. In considering M. L.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. M. L.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, and his admission that he had been disciplined for the same action previously detracted from the credibility of his testimony. Specifically, the undersigned is not convinced that M. L. had completed his work, that he was not disruptive, that Mr. Moore slammed M. L. to the floor, and that Mr. Moore put his knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore admits that he put, not slammed, M. L. to the floor. The undersigned does not find M. L.'s testimony convincing. The evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the situation and failed to notify the parents of M. L. as required that physical restraint had been used with M. L. Regarding the general allegation that Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay, M. L. testified as to Mr. Moore punching students in the arm, who were misbehaving, and O. B. testified as to Mr. Moore hitting students with a broom. M. L. testified that, at times, Mr. Moore punched him and other students in the arm when they were misbehaving. The undersigned's decision as to M. L.'s credibility remains the same. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore punched students who were misbehaving. O. B. testified that Mr. Moore attempted to hit him once with a broom when he was misbehaving and, at times, hit other students with a broom when they were misbehaving. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. O. B. testified that he did not consider J. B. to be a disruptive student; whereas, the evidence presented, regarding J. B., clearly indicates that J. B. is a disruptive student. O. B.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, together with his unsupported conclusion that J. B. was not a disruptive student, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find O. B.'s testimony convincing. Further, Mr. Calaf testified that, on occasions, he observed Mr. Moore grabbing students in the back and getting rough with them. Mr. Calaf did not testify that he reported his observations to the principal or other person who could exact discipline upon Mr. Moore. Moreover, Mr. Calaf did not testify that what he observed was inappropriate or contrary to the established crisis management training. Consequently, Mr. Calaf's observations cannot be used to support the alleged inappropriate conduct by Mr. Moore. Regarding the specific incident involving J. G. in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges, according to the principal of Renick, Eugenia Smith, she would not have recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore if it had not been for the incident on December 19, 2002, involving J. G., a middle school student at the time. No dispute exists that the School Board uses progressive discipline. For Ms. Smith, the incident involving J. G. was the incident that triggered the dismissal of Mr. Moore. As a result, this incident is the defining incident for Ms. Smith's decision to recommend dismissal of Mr. Moore and, therefore, if this incident is not proven, the basis for her recommendation of Mr. Moore's dismissal no longer exists. As to the specific incident involving J. G., the witnesses to the incident are J. G., other Renick students in the class, and Mr. Moore. No dispute in the testimony exists that, on December 19, 2002, Mr. Moore and J. G. got into a shouting match and that Mr. Moore never touched J. G. At Renick, J. G. was disruptive in his classes and had had many discipline problems. One psychologist at Renick, Joseph Strasko, described J. G. as physically disruptive and aggressive. Another psychologist at Renick, Theodore Cox, Jr., had observed J. G. engaging in inappropriate behavior. Also, Mr. Strasko described J. G. as a student who would not tell the truth when it was detrimental to him (J. G.); whereas, Mr. Cox had not known J. G. to tell an untruth. As to whether J. G. would tell the truth, the undersigned finds Mr. Strasko to be more credible and, therefore, finds that J. G. will not tell the truth when it is detrimental to him (J. G.). As to what lead to the shouting match, only Mr. Moore was certain as to what happened. The undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony credible regarding this aspect of the incident. J. G. was bullying a new student in the class and had physically moved toward the new student. Mr. Moore interceded to stop the bullying by J. G. and to protect the new student, requesting J. G. to take his seat but J. G. refused. Mr. Moore kept himself between J. G. and the new student, thereby, preventing J. G. from advancing upon the new student. What Mr. Moore said during the shouting match is where the testimony differs. However, no dispute exists as to certain aspects of the incident: that J. G. became angry and disrespectful toward Mr. Moore; that J. G. stated to Mr. Moore that, if Mr. Moore put his hands on him, he (J. G.) would bring his father and brother to Renick and they would deal with Mr. Moore; and that J. G. used profanity with Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore denies that he used profanity or disparaging remarks during the incident with J. G. The crisis management expert, Mr. Strasko,2 testified that it is not appropriate for a teacher to shout profanities at a student who is shouting profanities at the teacher; and that a teacher is required to be professional even when students are being disruptive. X. W., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that Mr. Moore called J. G. a "fat bitch" and called him (X. W.) a "punk." X. W. is J. G.'s cousin. D. J., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that he did not hear about what J. G. and Mr. Moore were arguing. However, D. J. testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother and that he (Mr. Moore) would "lay him on the ground." O. B. a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother to the store and that they would deal with it then. O. B. further testified that J. G. and Mr. Moore were calling each other gay and other derogatory names. Further, regarding the incident on December 19, 2002, Mr. Calaf did not witness the incident. Mr. Calaf returned to the class after the incident had occurred and observed J. G. crying and Mr. Moore and J. G. shouting at each other. Mr. Calaf did not testify as to what Mr. Moore and J. G. were shouting but did testify that he advised Mr. Moore that he (Mr. Moore) should not shout at students and should always remain professional, not getting on the level of the students. As to J. G.’s being disruptive in the class, Mr. Calaf testified that J. G. was generally disruptive and that usually Mr. Moore could calm J. G. down. The undersigned finds Mr. Calaf's testimony credible. In considering J. G.'s credibility, the aforementioned factors describing J. G. must be considered. In considering X. W.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but also that teachers are required not to use profanity and to be professional. Further, the undersigned must consider the fact that X. W. is J. G.'s cousin, which was unbeknownst to Ms. Smith. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider the factor that D. J. complained that Mr. Moore used physical restraint against him in an earlier incident in which the only witnesses were he and Mr. Moore. The incident and D. J.'s credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider that O. B. complained that he observed Mr. Moore hitting students at Renick with a broom. The incident and O. B's credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering Mr. Moore's credibility, the character testimony provided by Mr. Strasko and the character letters provided by Mr. Moore's colleagues must be considered. Mr. Strasko and Mr. Moore's colleagues address, among other things, what they consider the appropriate manner in which Mr. Moore handled students who were having behavior problems. Further, Mr. Moore's length of employment with the School Board, and his aforementioned past performance situations must be considered, including the one documented alleged inappropriate crisis management technique and language used by Mr. Moore in July 1998. Taking all of the aforementioned factors of credibility into consideration, the undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony more credible than the students, the character testimony and letters persuasive, and the lack of evidence, as to what was said, by a witness who was not involved in the incident, i.e., Mr. Calaf. Therefore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Moore did not use profanity during the incident of December 19, 2002. Mr. Moore did not report the incident involving J. G. Mr. Moore did not believe that the incident rose to the level that reporting was necessary. Moreover, no physical restraint was used. On May 1, 2003, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to review his employment history and future employment with the School Board. Among those in attendance with Mr. Moore were a UTD advocate, Ms. Smith, and the assistant superintendent for the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Student/Career Services. By a summary of the conference- for-the-record, dated June 6, 2003, the conference-for-the record was memoralized. By memorandum dated May 28, 2003, Ms. Smith and the assistant superintendent recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore. By letter dated August 21, 2003, the School Board notified Mr. Moore that at its meeting on August 20, 2003, it took action to suspend him and initiate dismissal proceedings against him from all employment with it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: Finding Algernon J. Moore, Jr. in violation of Counts I and IV in accordance with this Recommended Order. Dismissing Counts II and III. Upholding the suspension of Algernon J. Moore, Jr. Dismissing Algernon J. Moore, Jr. from all employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 066623, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Junior College, Reading, Early Childhood Education and Administration and Supervision. She has earned a bachelor's and master's degree, and a doctorate. Until her suspension in August, 1982, she served as Principal of West Riviera Elementary School ("West Riviera") in the Palm Beach County School District. On January 24, 1983, a final order was entered by the Palm Beach County School Board dismissing her from her employment and cancelling her continuing contract with the district. During Respondent's tenure as Principal at West Riviera, (1973-1982) it was her policy to maintain and rigorously enforce strict discipline, or as she put it, "law and order." Her approach to maintaining "law and order" is illustrated by the following events. When Marie Rusch joined West Riviera as a substitute Kindergarten teacher in October of 1979, Respondent explained that she wanted Ms. Rusch to maintain law and order in the school: "I don't care if these children learn nothing, I want law and order." Ms. Rusch was surprised by Respondent's attitude, particularly with regard to kindergarten children. This was Ms. Rusch's first opportunity to teach in a public school. During a conference in 1973 with Nancy Pullam, (another kindergarten teacher) regarding student behavior, Respondent gave Ms. Pullam two or more rulers taped together with masking tape and told "her beat them and they will learn." Respondent passed out 18" rulers to each member of the teaching staff at West Riviera and told them that she expected them to use the rulers in administering corporal punishment. Until on or about May 7, 1980, Respondent permitted teachers to administer corporal punishment in their classrooms, contrary to Palm Beach County School Board Policy 5.18(9). She permitted teachers to administer corporal punishment for any type of misbehavior until she changed that policy on or about March 12, 1982. At that time, she advised her faculty that corporal punishment was to be administered only for fighting and foul language. Prior to March 12, 1982, Respondent failed to set any guidelines for the faculty at West Riviera concerning offenses or infractions for which corporal punishment was authorized. In her view, the only "offense" which did not warrant corporal punishment was the failure of a student to do his assigned classwork. The only alternatives to corporal punishment utilized at West Riviera were suspension from school or deprivation of a fun activity (including depriving a student of physical education or use of the library). If a child would not accept paddling, it was Respondent's policy that the student be automatically suspended for a period of five days. Respondent constantly emphasized her philosophy of strict law and order through her use of the expression "Your behind is mine," meaning that if a child misbehaved he or she would receive a paddling. Respondent repeatedly used this expression in addressing children, faculty and staff, both personally and over the school's public address system. Respondent's manner of administering West Riviera created a fearful and military-like atmosphere. She often told teachers that she wanted it so quiet in faculty meetings, and in classrooms, that she could "hear a rat piss on cotton." When Marjorie Russo was hired to teach third grade, Respondent told her that corporal punishment used at West Riviera. Respondent told the faculty at the beginning of each school year that they each had a paddle, and she expected them to keep law and order. It they didn't, they would be "blackballed" in the county. Respondent told substitute teachers that her primary concern was that they maintain law and order, that she didn't care whether the substitute taught the children anything. Dr. Howard Levarity, Assistant Principal at West Riviera, became concerned about the extent to which corporal punishment was utilized under Respondent's administration. He was so concerned that he tried to transfer to another school. He observed occasions when children were corporally punished without good reason. At West Riviera, teachers were given great latitude in administering corporal punishment so that "law and order" - as defined by respondent - could be maintained. As a result of Respondent's policies regarding the use of corporal punishment, there were 3,246 separate instances in which students were administered corporal punishment during the 1979-1980 school year. A total of 451 students (78% of the school's students, ranging in number from 576 to 607) received corporal punishment during that school year. During the 1980-1981 school year, there were 1,176 instances in which corporal punishment was administered to students. Out of a school population of 550 students, 290 (52.8%) received corporal punishment during that year. During the 1981-1982 school year, there were 560 separate instances of corporal punishment. Out of a school population of 537, 214 students (40.9%) received corporal punishment during that year. Although most of these punishments were not administered in Respondent's presence, their frequency was a direct result of her policy to encourage - even insist - that corporal punishment be applied to maintain law and order. During the 1979-1980 school year, fourth grade student Greg Aronson was corporally punished 59 times. Greg's mother was never notified by the school that he received corporal punishment on 70 different occasions. Second grade student Sterling DeShields received corporal punishment on 45 occasions. Fourth grade student Robert Duguette received corporal punishment on 61 occasions. Fourth grade student Steve Geck received corporal punishment on 43 occasions. Sixth grade student Thomas Gradison received corporal punishment on 48 occasions, four of which occurred within a one hour period of time on October 25, 1979. In each instance, Thomas received the maximum of 5 strokes, for a total of 20 strokes within one hour. Fourth grade student Keith Griffin received corporal punishment on 52 occasions. Lucius Jackson, a fifth grade student, received corporal punishment on 44 occasions, three of which occurred during the morning of December 6, 1979. In each of his 44 paddling, Lucius received the maximum of 5 strokes. Fourth grade student Mark Nunnally received corporal punishment on 41 occasions. David Pender, a fourth grade student, received corporal punishment 58 occasions. Second grade student Cameron Walker received corporal punishment on 38 occasions, with Respondent administering 17 of the paddling. Fourth grade student Elinor Williams received 34 paddling. Kindergarten student Leonard Williams received 31 paddling, three of which occurred within one and one-half hours on the morning of September 18, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) During the 1980-1981 school year, Greg Aronson received another 8 paddling, but again his parents were never notified. Lucius Jackson was corporally punished on 55 occasions. Lucius received 4 paddling on February 11, 1981, totaling 20 strokes. Fourth grade student Rufus Mitchell was administered corporal punishment on 25 occasions, two of which were eight minutes apart on October 15, 1980. Rufus received the maximum of 5 strokes during each of these paddling. Fourth grade student Lendrick McGrady was paddled 30 times. Sixth grade student Mark Oats received corporal punishment on 30 occasions. Sixth grade student Kenneth Studstill received corporal punishment on 28 occasions. Sixth grade student Hurie Whitfield received corporal punishment on 26 occasions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Although Respondent admitted that corporal punishment was ineffective for Lucius Jackson, he was paddled 44 times during the 1979-1980 school year, 55 times during the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent witnessed each of the 4 paddling which Lucius received on May 8, 1981, near the end of that school year. Although student William Dinkins was administered corporal punishment in 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982 school years, his mother was never notified of the punishment, contrary to Administrative Directive D-5.35(9) of the Palm Beach County School Board. Respondent used excessive and unreasonable force on numerous occasions when she personally administered corporal punishment to elementary school students at West Riviera. Many times, she interrupted paddling which were being administered by teacher. She would take the paddle from the teacher and administer the punishment herself, because the teacher, in her view, was not striking the child hard enough. On one occasion, Respondent interrupted teacher Vickie Culton and took over the paddling because Ms. Culton was not hitting the child hard enough. When the child pulled away, Respondent followed him around the room, striking him repeatedly. The child received more than the maximum 5 strokes allowable under school board policy. In paddling another kindergarten child named Theron, Respondent pushed his head against a wall, causing him to scream and cry to such an extent that teachers stuck their heads into the hall to see what was happening. On another occasion, Respondent took Theron into a bathroom and paddled him while his classmates and teacher listened in the adjacent classroom. Respondent had just paddled Theron in her office and brought him back to the classroom. Since he continued to scream and cry, she administered the second paddling in the bathroom. Respondent interrupted Ms. Culton's paddling several times because Respondent felt she was not hitting the child hard enough. Teacher Joyce Wojtowicz had the same experience. On one occasion, she was paddling a third grade student named Carol, while Respondent observed a as a witness. Respondent interrupted the paddling and proceeded to give the girl a severe paddling, administering five strokes. In the meantime, another third grade student, Tammy was standing nearby watching. When Respondent finished paddling Carol, Tammy was shaking violently; terrified, she began to vomit. Ms. Wojtowicz was also shaken by the severity of the paddling. Respondent gave some tissue to Tammy, ordered her to clean up the vomit, and told her that she was not going to avoid paddling by throwing up. After cleaning up the vomit, Respondent paddled Tammy, giving her the maximum 5 strokes. On another occasion, Ms. Wojtowicz overheard Respondent administering corporal punishment to a child in the school clinic. As Respondent hit the child with the paddle, Ms. Wojtowicz heard Respondent say, "Are you going to piss on my carpet?" As the child was given another stroke, Respondent said, "Are you going to pee on my floor?" As Ms. Wojtowicz walked out of the bathroom, she saw that Respondent was paddling a small kindergarten child. With each stroke, the child's feet went out from under him. Another teacher, Leslie Smith, witnessed Respondent paddle a five year old kindergarten boy. Respondent hit the boy very hard on the first stroke causing him to fall on the floor, then struck him two or three times while he was on the floor. Another teacher, Marcie Ann Wolfe, sent a student with an emotional problem to the office for the purpose of having Respondent talk to him. Instead, the student returned with a disciplinary slip indicating that Respondent had paddled him. At that point, Ms. Wolfe resolved that she would no longer send students to the office for discipline. Teacher Lynne McDowell witnessed Respondent administer corporal punishment to third grade student Craig Griffin. Craig had never been paddled at school before, and he resisted Ms. McDowell's attempt to paddle him in the office. Respondent intervened, took the paddle from Ms. McDowell, and administered the paddling to Craig, striking him wherever the blows fell -- on his legs and hands. Ms. McDowell observed Respondent administer a severe paddling to another student, Shawn, with the strokes landing so hard that it "rang my ears." If a child moved or fidgeted while Respondent was paddling them, she would start over. Third grade teacher Marjorie Russo observed Respondent paddle a kindergarten or first grade boy so hard that he came up off the floor. The little boy managed to get away from Respondent and tried to go under her desk. Respondent kept hitting him while he was on the floor. In Ms. Russo's view, Respondent hit the child "ridiculously hard" for a boy that size. Kindergarten teacher Mary Rudin witnessed Respondent administer corporal punishment to kindergarten student James J. Martin in her class and in the presence of other students. Ms. Rudin had asked James to make some circles on a piece of paper, but he refused. So, Ms. Rudin asked Respondent to come to her class in an effort to get James to cooperate. Respondent then asked James to perform the task; again he refused. At that point, Respondent administered five strokes to James. She sat him down and again requested that he perform the task. Once again he refused, and once again, she stood him up and gave him five more strokes. She then made a third request for him to perform the task; he responded, "I'll do it if you get away from me." This angered Respondent. She picked him up again and paddled him a third time. After the third paddling, James performed the task. He never returned to his class after that day because he was withdrawn from school by his parents. His father, James Martin, a teacher at Suncoast High School removed James because of the severity of the paddling. Photographs taken two days after the paddling show pronounced red marks from the to of his buttocks half way down his legs to hi knees. When Mr. Martin and his wife first observed the marks, they called their doctor, who agreed to see them that evening. The doctor was shocked by what he saw, and advised that he would have to report the case as an incident of child abuse. He recommended that Mr. Martin consult an attorney. Mr. Martin spoke to Respondent the following day. She apologized, explaining that she "lost her cool." Mr. Martin went to James' classroom to get his belongings; however, James would not go inside. He remained outside in the hallway, visibly shaken. In addition to Mr. Martin, Barbara Wright and Betty Deurloo complained to the school about their children being subjected to excessive punishment. Like Mr. Martin, Ms. Wright and Ms. Deurloo removed their children from West Riviera. In Respondent's view, if a student constantly wet his pants, it was an offense warranting corporal punishment. Although Respondent testified that the only "offense" that did not justify corporal punishment was when a child refused to do his or her lesson, the testimony of Ms. Rudin and Mr. Martin indicates that Respondent did not follow her own guideline. On numerous occasions, Respondent used profanity and made inappropriate, improper, and unprofessional remarks to students at West Riviera. After paddling a student named Lawrence in her office on April 14, 1982, Respondent told Lawrence to sit down. She pointed to a heater cord and threatened to tie him up with the heater cord if he didn't sit still. Respondent told Leslie Smith's kindergarten class that if they didn't shut up she would "kick their butts through the ceiling and kill them all." Respondent referred to a female student in Ms. Wojtowicz's class named Carolyn as a "thug." Respondent told Janet Zendel's first grade students who were line up to go to the bathroom, "If you've got to piss, piss, but there's not going to be no line." Respondent asked one of Mary Rudin's kindergarten students, "What are you looking at me for? Do I have piss all over my face?" She used a loud and sarcastic tone of voice. On another occasion when a child apparently urinated in a stairwell, Respondent announced over the public address system at the school, in a loud, angry voice, "Someone peed in my stairwell. When I find out who it is, I am going to beat you bloody, bloody, bloody." Respondent repeated this several times, reiterating that when she found out who the offender was, she would beat them "bloody, bloody, bloody." Respondent also used profanity in addressing members of the faculty and staff at West Riviera. She often told faculty members, "Get your shit together," and "I want it so quiet that I can hear a rat piss on cotton." Respondent commented to Jill Proce that she wanted Ms. Proce to take her paycheck and "buy some damn pants." During the first faculty meeting of the 1981-1982 school year, Respondent discussed the possibility of angry parents using profanity toward teachers. Respondent made a remark to the effect that teachers might even be called "mother fuckers." Respondent then defined the term mother fucker, and asked a faculty member, "How do you know I didn't fuck my mother?" Teacher Roma Smith heard Respondent use profane words such as fuck, shit, piss and mother fucker, in faculty meetings at West Riviera. After accusing teacher Mary Rudin of being insubordinate for not setting up tables in the hallway for registration, Respondent told Ms. Rudin, "do you see that doorway there? Don't let it hit you on the ass on your way out, if you don't like it here at West Riviera." At a preschool meeting before the commencement of the 1975-1976 school year Respondent presided over a faculty meeting wearing a T-shirt with a picture of excrement on it and the caption, "Get your shit together." Respondent used improper, inappropriate and unprofessional language in addressing faculty members at West Riviera. AT the end of Jill Proce's first day as a teacher at West Riviera, Respondent called Ms. Proce into her office, pulled her (Respondent's) pants up tight between her legs and told Ms. Proce, "This is the way you look with the lips of your vagina hanging out." Respondent asked Ms. Proce what she was trying to do to the fourth grade boys, if she was trying to give them some ideas. Respondent then proceeded to tell Ms. Proce that if Respondent was a parent and she walked into Ms. Proce's classroom, she would think that her child was being taught by a prostitute. Ms. Proce's pants were not too tight, and she was dressed appropriately for an elementary school teacher. At the beginning of each year, Respondent issued handbooks to her teachers, with instructions that they had a paddle and respondent expected them to keep law and order. If they did not keep law and order, Respondent told them they could be "blackballed" in the county. After Respondent walked in Ms. McDowell's classroom one day and found the students noisy and disorganized, she told Ms. McDowell in a conference that Respondent had friends in high places; that if she did not shape up, she would have her blackballed in Palm Beach County and she would never teach there again. After buying new clothes in an effort to meet Respondent's criticisms regarding her attire, Ms. Proce approached Respondent one day and asked her if the clothes she was wearing were suitable. Respondent answered by saying that Ms. Proce wasn't there to suit her, she was there to suit her job, and if she didn't like it she could be blackballed of Palm Beach County. On another occasion, Respondent yelled at teacher Joyce Washington in front of Ms. Washington's class, accusing her of losing a student's medical form. Ms. Washington had not lost the student's medical form. Respondent told her if she could not get her act together, that she was going to lose her job, which she spelled out "J...O...B." During the 1981-1982 school year, primary resource teacher Patsy McClain received a telephone call from Respondent, who at the time was admitted to the Palm Beach Gardens Hospital. Respondent asked Ms. McClain to bring two students to the hospital for the purpose of braiding Respondent's hair. After getting the Assistant Principal's permission, Ms. McClain selected two girls, Elinor Williams and Jamilia Dailey. After getting permission from their parents, she drove them to Palm Beach Gardens Hospital. The girls were taken out of school in mid-morning and were gone approximately two hours. AT the hospital, they braided Respondent's hair. In November 1980, Respondent approached teacher Joyce Washington during an open house at West Riviera and instructed Ms. Washington to change student Joshua Logan's grades to all "S's." Ms. Washington had previously prepared her report cards, and had issued several "U's," indicating unsatisfactory, to Joshua. Respondent told Ms. Washington to change his grades to "S's" and to give Joshua all "S's," indicating satisfactory, on his report card for the remainder of the year. The reason given was that she did not want any more hassles from the child's parents. Although in Ms. Washington's opinion Joshua's work did not warrant all "S's," she nevertheless gave the child "S's" for the remainder of the school year. When the other students in Ms. Washington's class learned of Joshua's new grades, their grades started going down. Many teachers were frightened by Respondent and taught in an oppressive atmosphere of tension and intimidation. Jill Proce had begun to look for other employment in another county. Music could not be taught except at Christmas. Music books and instruments were removed from the classrooms. So were record players. Crayons were removed out of fear that students would get crayon marks on the floors. Joyce Washington intended to seek a transfer, but volunteered to leave West Riviera when an opening occurred elsewhere. Assistant Principal Levarity tried to get a transfer because of Respondent's heaving reliance on corporal punishment. During the fall of 1979, Fran Gill, North Area Superintendent for the Palm Beach County School District, spoke to Respondent about administration of corporal punishment at West Riviera. Ms. Gill had been advised that teachers were administering corporal punishment to student sin the classroom, in violation of school board policy and administrative directive. During that meeting, Ms. Gill explained to Respondent that she must follow the school board's Administrative Directive D5.35 and gave Respondent a copy. Among other things, this directive required that the Principal or his/her administrative designee must, in ever case, determine the necessity for corporal punishment and, in ever case, designate the time, place and member of the instructional staff who will administer the punishment. In addition, the directive provided that no teacher may be required to administer corporal punishment. Notwithstanding Ms. Gill's directive to comply with Administrative Directive D5.35, Respondent continued to require teachers to administer corporal punishment to students in the classroom in order to maintain law and order at West Riviera. When Ms. Gill again became aware in May 1980 of Respondent's noncompliance with the directive, she called her and asked whether students were still being paddled in the classroom. Respondent indicated that she was still permitting students to be paddled in the classroom by teachers. This conversation occurred on May 6, 1980. ON May 8, 1980, Ms. Gill confirmed their conversation in a written memorandum to Respondent, emphasizing her prior verbal instructions. In March of 1982, Ms. Gill again met with Respondent regarding concerns expressed to her by parents. Ms. Gill found that the directive was not being followed, and that the only change which had been made was that children were being brought to the office to be paddled. The teachers were still exercising their discretion as to whether or not corporal punishment would be administered, and parents were not being contacted beforehand. Ms. Gill expressed her concern to Respondent regarding her failure to follow the school board's administrative directive. Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Gill, date March 12, 1982, in response to Ms. Gill's concerns. In her letter, Respondent states, "I held a faculty meeting this morning and explained to teachers that we will no longer paddle students for every misbehavior." As a result of Respondent's failure to follow her specific instructions concerning adherence to school board policy and administrative directives relating to administration of corporal punishment, Ms. Gill prepared a list of fourteen specific questions for Respondent to answer regarding corporal punishment at West Riviera. Respondent received the written questions on March 18, 1982, and furnished her written responses on March 31, 1982. Respondent provided false answers to these questions. In response to question one, Respondent falsely stated that in each instance of inappropriate behavior the teacher brought the student to the office and conferred with the Principal or Assistant Principal prior to utilizing corporal punishment. In response to question three, Respondent falsely indicated that teachers were not required to paddle students. In response to question six, Respondent falsely indicated that whenever a student received corporal punishment for the first or second time, a copy of the student discipline referral slip was sent to their parents. In response to question seven, Respondent indicated that the alternatives to corporal punishment were in-house suspension or suspension from school, when in fact the alternatives utilized at West Riviera included depriving the student of attending physical education or utilizing the library. In response to question eleven, Respondent failed to indicate that alternative types of punishment included depriving the student of physical education or use of the library. In response to question thirteen concerning changes made in the administration of corporal punishment within the past three years, Respondent replied that she had complied with Ms. Gill's instructions on May 6, 1980, to refrain from allowing teachers to paddle students in their classroom. In fact, Respondent continued to permit teachers to determine whether corporal punishment was appropriate and to administer it at their discretion. Although Respondent testified that failing to do one's school work did not warrant corporal punishment, Respondent administered three consecutive paddling to kindergarten student J.J. Martin for failing to do a handwriting lesson. Although Respondent changed her policy in March, 1982 by restricting the use of corporal punishment to cases of fighting or foul language, she later administered corporal punishment to one of Ms. Wolfe's students for misbehaving in her class. Ms. Wolfe had specifically requested that Respondent talk to the student, not paddle him. Respondent admits that she did not follow Administrative Directive D5.35 prior to May 7, 1980. Yet Fran Gill had specifically directed her to comply with that directive and school board policy concerning corporal punishment in the Fall of 1979. Respondent failed to prepare guidelines for administering corporal punishment at West Riviera which identified the types of punishable offenses, the conditions under which the punishment would be administered and the specific personnel on the school staff authorized to administer the punishment, contrary to Section 232.27(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent ridiculed and humiliated children by paddling them in their classrooms in the presence of their classmates on several occasions, contrary to Administrative Directive D5.35(4). She used profane and abusive language with them. In the professional opinion of Kenneth Schrimsher, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Relations with the Palm Beach School Board, the number of incidents of corporal punishment administered at West Riviera during the 1979-1980 school year was excessive. In his view, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board has been seriously reduced. His opinion is credible and accepted as persuasive. Despite the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that prevailed at West Riviera during Respondent's tenure, student achievement on standardized tests improved dramatically. When she arrived at West Riviera, it was among the five worst schools in the county, rated by test scores; when she left in 1982, it was among the top five, out of a total of more than 50 elementary schools. Her methods also caused West Riviera to become one of the cleanest and best maintained elementary schools in the county. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for five (5) years (with opportunity for reapplication) for violation of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 128 Salem Court Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Holland, Esquire 605 Clematis Street Post Office Box 2648 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2648 Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nancy S. Lowery ("Respondent"), violated Subsections 231.2615(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2001),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 365470, issued by the Department of Education. The certificate covered the area of family and consumer science and was valid through June 30, 2002. During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Oakridge High School ("Oakridge"), a school in the Orange County School District ("School District"), and taught exceptional education students. On February 1, 2002, while employed as a teacher at Oakridge, Respondent showed the movie, "Jaws III," in her classroom to the students in her fourth-period class. That day there were about ten students in Respondent's fourth-period class. Prior to or soon after starting the movie, Respondent turned off the lights in the classroom, and the lights remained off while the movie was playing. While the movie was playing, the students in Respondent's class sat at their desks. However, at some point during the movie, D.C., a female student in the class, asked J.G., another student, if she (J.G.) gave "head." In response, J.G. answered in the affirmative. After J.G. responded, D.C. and G.J., a male student in the class, then coaxed J.G. to perform oral sex on G.J. Then, G.J. unzipped his pants and told J.G. to put her head "down there," and she did so. At or near the same time, G.J. put his hand in J.G.'s pants. For most of the class period, J.G.'s head was in G.J.'s lap. While J.G. was performing oral sex on G.J., some of the students in the class positioned their desks so that Respondent could not see what J.G. and G.J. were doing. At all times relevant to this proceeding, B.D. was about 16-years-old and a student at Oakridge. B.D. was in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, and observed the events and incident described in paragraphs four through six. Petitioner was in the classroom during the entire fourth period while "Jaws III" was playing. However, once the movie began playing, Petitioner was at the computer in the classroom "working on" or "typing" something. Petitioner was working at the computer most of the class period and did not see J.G. and G.J. engaging in the inappropriate sexual conduct described in paragraph five. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Kari Sperre was the chairman of the Exceptional Education Department at Oakridge, the department in which Respondent worked. On the morning of February 1, 2002, Ms. Sperre took her class on a field trip. Ms. Sperre and her class returned to the school during the fourth period. As Ms. Sperre walked by Respondent's classroom, she noticed that the lights in that classroom were out. Later that day, it was reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. had told another student, L.C., that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. Upon hearing this report, Ms. Sperre investigated the matter. Ms. Sperre first talked to L.C., a female student in the ninth grade at Oakridge. L.C., who was not in Respondent's fourth-period class, reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. told her (L.C.) that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. After she spoke with L.C., Ms. Sperre then talked to J.G. Although initially reluctant to talk to Ms. Sperre, J.G. eventually told Ms. Sperre what had happened that day in Respondent's class. J.G. told Ms. Sperre that she had only recently transferred to Oakridge, that she was in Petitioner's fourth-period class, and that the lights in the class were out during class that day. J.G. also reported to Ms. Sperre that two students in the class, D.C., a female student, and G.J., a male student, encouraged her to perform oral sex on G.J. According to J.G., D.C. and/or G.J. told her that all she had to do was put her head underneath G.J.'s jacket and nobody would know what was going on. J.G. also told Ms. Sperre that G.J.'s pants were open and admitted that, "I just bent down and did it." J.G. told Ms. Sperre that this incident occurred while the class was watching the movie and while Respondent was working on the computer. At all times relevant to this proceeding, J.G. was classified as an exceptional education student, having been classified as educable mentally handicapped. A student classified as educable mentally handicapped has an IQ of below 70, well below the average IQ of 100. After the February 1, 2002, incident that occurred in Respondent's class, J.G. was suspended from school for engaging in inappropriate conduct at school. Also, since the incident, J.G. withdrew from school and is no longer enrolled in the School District. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated several policies of the School District. First, the School District requires that teachers supervise their students at all times when they are in the classroom. In order to do this, the teacher should have the students within sight. This is especially important with regard to exceptional education students, who have special and unique challenges. Respondent did not supervise her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, although she was in the classroom. Instead of supervising her class, Respondent was working at the computer most of the class period and was unaware of what the students were doing. Clearly, Respondent was not supervising her students, as evidenced by her failure to ever notice or observe the sexually inappropriate conduct by students in her class. By failing to properly supervise her class on February 1, 2002, Respondent failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their learning and/or physical health and/or safety. The incident that occurred on February 1, 2002, in Respondent's class could have a negative impact on both the students who observed the incident, as well as the student who was encouraged to perform oral sex on the male student. The educable mentally handicapped student who was coaxed into performing the act could be the victim of teasing as a result of her involvement in the incident. According to Ms. Sperre, those students who witnessed the incident could also be negatively impacted by being exposed to and observing the incident. For example, many of the students in the exceptional education class could also be encouraged to engage in the same type of activity that they witnessed in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002. The School District has a policy that prohibits teachers from turning out all the lights in their classrooms during class time. This policy is for safety reasons and requires that even if there is a need to turn off the classroom lights, at least one "bank" of lights must remain on at all times. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy discussed in paragraph 22, by turning off all the lights at or near the beginning of the fourth period, and they remained off while the students were watching the movie. This violation contributed to Respondent's failure to supervise the students because with all the lights out, even though she was in the classroom, Respondent was unaware and unable to see what the students, including J.G. and G.J., were doing. During the 2001-2002 school year, Oakridge had a policy that allowed teachers to show only movies that were educational or had some relevance to the lesson being taught in the class. At the beginning of every school year, including the 2001-2002 school year, teachers at Oakridge are given faculty handbooks, which include various policies and procedures that they are required to read. In addition to these written policies and procedures, Oakridge administrators would "discuss" various "oral procedures" with teachers at facility meetings. It is unclear if the policies or procedures regarding the kinds of movies that could be shown at Oakridge and the prohibition against having all the lights off in classrooms at Oakridge were written or oral policies and/or procedures. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy related to the kind of movies that are allowed to be shown in the classroom by showing the movie, "Jaws III." "Jaws III" is not an educational movie, nor was it relevant to any lesson being taught by Respondent at or near the time it was being shown to the students. The School District investigated the February 1, 2002, incident, and thereafter, the committee reviewed the incident and voted unanimously to recommend that Respondent be terminated as a teacher in the School District. Despite the unanimous recommendation of termination, because Respondent's teaching contract for re-appointment was to be considered soon, instead of terminating Respondent, the School District decided that it would simply not recommend her for re-appointment for the 2002- 2003 school year. On February 20, 2002, after the February 1, 2002, incident was investigated, Oakridge's principal, J. Richard Damron, issued to Respondent a letter of reprimand and a letter of directives regarding the incident that occurred in Respondent's classroom on February 1, 2002. The letter of reprimand specifically referenced the February 1, 2002, incident and stated that Respondent had "failed to use reasonable care in supervising" the students in her class. Next, the letter of reprimand stated that a directive would be issued in a separate correspondence that outlines the School District's expectations regarding Respondent's conduct in the future. Finally, the letter of reprimand noted that "should there be another incident of a similar nature in the future[,] discipline, up to and including dismissal could be recommended." On February 20, 2002, Principal Damron issued written directives to Respondent which required her to do the following: (1) establish a safe, caring, and nurturing environment conducive to learning and the physical and psychological well- being of students; (2) refrain from showing films that are not directly associated with lessons that contribute to the education of children; (3) keep children under her [Petitioner's] direct supervision at all times and not leave students alone, with other teachers, or be absent from her duties unless she makes prior arrangements with the principal or one of the assistant principals; and (4) comply with all district and school directives, policies, rules, and procedures. Respondent's job performance as a teacher at Oakridge for the 2001-2002 school year was evaluated in March 2002. The results of the evaluation are reported on the School District's form entitled, Instructional Personnel Final Assessment Report ("Assessment Report"). The Assessment Report dated March 25, 2002, noted two areas in which Respondent "Needs Improvement": (1) Professional Responsibilities; and (2) Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was rated as "Effective" in four areas: (1) Curriculum Knowledge; (2) Planning and Delivering Instruction; (3) Assessment of Student Performance; (4) Development and Interpersonal Skills. On March 25, 2002, the same day the Assessment Report was completed, Principal Damron notified Respondent that he was not recommending her for re-appointment for the 2002-2003 school year. According to the letter, Principal Damron decided to not recommend Respondent for re-appointment "based upon performance- related reasons and the temporary contract" that she held at that time. Alfred Lopez, a senior manager with the Orange County School District, testified that by failing to supervise the students in her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the School District had "definitely" been reduced. Ms. Sperre testified that she would not ever want Respondent employed in a school in Orange County in which she (Ms. Sperre) was employed. Notwithstanding the beliefs of Mr. Lopez and Ms. Sperre, based on the letter of reprimand and the letter of directives issued on February 20, 2002, it appears that Respondent continued to teach at Oakridge after the February 2002 incident through the end of the school year. Furthermore, no evidence was presented which established that after the incident, Respondent was reassigned, relieved of, or otherwise removed from her position as an exceptional education teacher at Oakridge after the incident.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(a), but did not violate Subsections 231.2615(1)(a) and (f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(e). It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order impose the following administrative sanctions on Respondent: Upon employment in any public or private position requiring an educator's certificate, Respondent shall be placed on two years' probation with the conditions that during this period, she shall: Notify the Education Practices Commission, upon employment and immediately upon termination of employment in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator's certificate; Have her immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the Education Practices Commission; Violate no law and fully comply with all School District regulations, school rules, and the State Board of Education; Satisfactorily perform assigned duties in a competent, professional manner; and Bear all costs of complying with the terms of this probation. Enroll in and successfully complete a three-hour college course in classroom management within the first year of probation and submit to the Bureau of Education Standards an official college transcript verifying successful completion of the course with a grade of "B" or higher. This course must be taken in person, and a correspondence or on-line course will not satisfy this requirement. Issue a letter of reprimand, with a copy to be placed in Respondent's certification file. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2005.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Arthur Williams, committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such violations are just cause for his suspension without pay for thirty days.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Arthur Williams, was an employee of School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract and was assigned to teach beginning band at Norland Middle School. The sole incident complained of in this case occurred on or about January 24, 2006, in the Respondent’s sixth period band class. The Respondent’s band class was located in a large classroom with three riser sections formed into a semi-circle. Students assigned seats in the higher section would step up the risers using the railed “hallways” leading to the upper sections. On or about January 24, 2006, C. M. was a student in the Respondent’s sixth period class. C. M. had an assigned seat in an upper riser section. For reasons known only to C. M., the student left his seat and walked down the riser hallway to pick up a piece of paper and throw it into a trash can located on or near the floor. Presumably, the trash can was at the lowest section (compared to the student’s seat). When the Respondent observed the student, C. M., out of his seat, he approached the student, put his hands on the student’s shoulders, turned him around (to then face his seat), and told him to return to his seat. In connection with the verbal direction to return to his seat, the Respondent gave the student a slight shove to direct him in the proper direction. The student, C. M., was out of his seat without permission, was unprepared for class, and was not responsible for throwing trash away (presumably an act he felt justified his behavior). The slight shove was so imperceptible that it did not offend any student who observed the action. C. M. did not show any sign of injury at the time of the incident described above. None of the students alleged that the Respondent had acted in anger in redirecting the student to his seat. None of the students perceived the act of redirecting the student as an act of corporal punishment or physical aggression against the student. Some six days after the incident complained of, the mother of the alleged victim took the student to the hospital. The mother claimed the student was diagnosed with a sprained ankle. There is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent caused the alleged victim’s alleged sprained ankle. None of the other student witnesses verified that C. M. was injured or seen limping on or about the date of the incident. The Respondent continued teaching at the school through the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. The Respondent did not endanger the student, C. M., at any time. After the incident complained of herein, the student’s mother decided to move the student from the Respondent’s class. When the Respondent went to a conference with the office of professional standards there was no allegation that the Respondent had failed to comply with the corporal punishment guidelines. The act of redirecting the student to his seat was not an attempt at corporal punishment. The Respondent did not make physical contact with the student, C. M., to maintain discipline. It is undisputed that the Respondent was merely attempting to get the student to return to his seat. The Respondent’s conduct did not disparage the student. The Respondent’s conduct did not embarrass the student. The Respondent did not push C. M. down. On or near the date of the incident, the Respondent called C. M.’s parent to address the student’s poor class performance. The incident complained of herein was not addressed during the call. In fact, prior to the call, C. M. had not complained regarding the incident described above. When faced with an allegation of poor class performance, C. M. told his parent about the incident described above and claimed he had been injured in the process. The alleged injury prompted the removal of the student from the Respondent’s class. Thereafter, the parent contacted the Petitioner’s region office to file a complaint against the Respondent. That complaint resulted in the instant action. Ms. Pritchett maintained that the Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been adversely impaired as a result of the parent’s complaint regarding the incident. The record lacks any information regarding the Respondent’s past school performance. No prior disciplinary issues or actions were noted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order concluding the Respondent’s behavior does not warrant a 30-day suspension. S DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment with the school district.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional services contract as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) consultant at Haines City High School (HCHS). In her 20 years at HCHS, Respondent has also served as an ESE teacher, an English teacher, and a Reading teacher. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been disciplined. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was assigned to a small office that she shared with the HCHS football coach, Ron Johnson, and another ESE teacher, Selma Gandy. In January 2014, a mathematics teacher, Sue Allemang, retired and moved to Virginia. Ms. Allemang and Respondent knew one another, and Respondent had Ms. Allemang’s telephone number. When spring football started that year, Coach Johnson asked Respondent to telephone Ms. Allemang to see if the mathematics teacher would agree to change a student’s grade that had been given in the fall term. According to Ms. Allemang, Respondent telephoned her and asked if the grade could be changed (presumably to improve the student’s grade point average). After a brief conversation, Ms. Allemang agreed that the student’s grade could be improved. Ms. Allemang’s agreement to raise the grade extended to one student. Thereafter, Respondent completed a grade change form for the student, indicated that Ms. Allemang had authorized the change, and signed the form before delivering it to Angela Allen, the terminal operator at HCHS, who was responsible for inputting data into the HCHS system. Although Ms. Allemang recalled authorizing changing a grade for one student, Respondent executed two forms for two of Ms. Allemang’s students so that grades could be improved. Between January 13 and May 7, 2014, Respondent delivered 15 grade change forms for students who were on the football team. In almost every instance the changes increased the students’ grades and would have thereby increased their grade point averages. Respondent did not feel that she had done anything wrong in delivering the grade change forms. She maintained that she was simply a messenger delivering forms as a courtesy to others because she was going to the office. Such testimony has not been deemed credible or persuasive. Respondent knew or should have known that, absent her conduct, the grades would not have been changed at the times they were. In fact, Respondent was the facilitator of the grade change for Ms. Allemang’s student because had she not initiated the telephone conversation there would have been no basis for the change. As it was, Respondent knew or should have known that the student whose grade was changed had done no additional work to merit the change as Ms. Allemang no longer taught at the school. Further, Respondent did not represent to Ms. Allemang that additional work (supervised by Respondent or another teacher) would support the grade change. Other teachers who have approved grade changes have done so based upon additional work required of the student. In this case, two of Ms. Allemang’s students did not perform additional work to support the grade changes. Moreover, Ms. Allemang only authorized the change for one student. The record established that Respondent completed grade change forms for two of Ms. Allemang’s students. Another teacher no longer employed at HCHS authorized a grade change for one of the football players. When Ms. Allen questioned Respondent about that change, Respondent claimed that Coach Johnson had obtained the signature from the former teacher to support the change. Whether additional work was required to support the grade change is unknown. During a normal school year, Ms. Allen processes grade change forms for approximately six students. In this case, Respondent submitted 15 grade change forms to Ms. Allen. One of the physical education teachers at HCHS was asked to change grades for athletes. Coach Johnson gave the teacher a list of the athletes needing improved grades. Before the teacher would agree to the changes, the students were required to complete extra work. Some ran laps or did other physical activities for extra credit. Some wrote essays or did other academic work. The teacher did not change the grades absent extra credit work done by the students. There was not an ongoing “culture of grade changing” at HCHS. Coach Johnson sought grade changes presumably to allow football players to be eligible to participate. Respondent assisted in obtaining the grade changes and should have known that grades should not be improved absent bona fide justification for the change. Respondent knew or should have known that changes without justification were inappropriate. Respondent demonstrated a lack of remorse or comprehension of the gravity of her behavior. Respondent’s willful indifference to the fundamental concept of how grades must be earned calls into question her education ethics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Polk County School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct and imposing such penalty as may be appropriate up to, and including, termination of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 3rd day of April, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19, North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1538 (eServed) Donald H. Wilson, Esquire Boswell and Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Kathryn LeRoy, Superintendent Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY 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 25th day of August, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Manatee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause to terminate the employment of Teacher Karyn Cena (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a first grade teacher employed by the Petitioner to work at Tillman Elementary School (Tillman) pursuant to a professional services contract. On May 11, 2010, the Tillman first grade students were gathered in an auditorium to rehearse for a musical program to be presented in celebration of Memorial Day. The students had been rehearsing for several days prior to May 11, 2010. As might be expected, some first grade students required occasional redirection. Such redirection was generally communicated by a teacher delivering a "stern look" to the non-complying student. If the correction was not successful, a non-complying student was directed to go to the back of the room and sit on a bench that essentially served as a "time out" area. At one point in the program, the students were standing, singing, and holding up their arms, pretending to waive American flags. The flags had not yet been distributed to the students. During this portion of the rehearsal on May 11, 2010, the Respondent apparently thought that one of the students ("S.M.") was playing and not pretending to wave the non-existent flag appropriately. The Respondent grabbed the student by the arm and quickly walked the student to the back of the room, where the Respondent placed the student forcefully on the time out bench. The student did not resist the Respondent in any manner. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent provided any redirection to the student prior to her physical interaction with the student. There was no evidence that the student was unable to comply with a verbal directive delivered by the Respondent or any other teacher. There was no evidence that the student was acting out or posed any threat whatsoever to himself or any other student, or to the Respondent or any other school employee. There was no evidence that any force or physical contact was necessary whatsoever to correct the student's behavior or to direct the student to the time out area. At the hearing, the Respondent was described by witnesses as appearing "angry" during the incident. Although the Respondent denied that she was angry with the child, the Respondent's interaction with the student was clearly inappropriate under the circumstances, and it is not unreasonable to attribute her behavior to anger. Observers of the incident testified that the student appeared to be embarrassed by the incident, sitting with his head bowed after being placed on the bench. Some teachers testified that they felt personal embarrassment for the student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order, terminating the employment of Karyn Cena. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 19th day of August, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Philip Arthur James holds Florida Teacher's Certificate number 357596, rank 3, covering the areas of mental retardation and emotionally disturbed children. During the 1982-1983 school year, the Respondent James was employed as a public school teacher at the Paul B. Stephens Exceptional Center in the Pinellas County School District. During the 1982-1983 school year, the Respondent James was assigned to teach a class of approximately six profoundly mentally handicapped students. None of the students in the Respondent's class could talk, walk, read or write. Some were incontinent and wore diapers. Howie Flood, one of the profoundly mentally retarded students in the Respondent's class, was 17 years old. Because of Howie's severe condition, it was almost impossible to elicit any type of response from him. The Respondent, however, attempted to force Howie to respond by pulling or yanking his hair on a number of occasions. The Respondent did not pull Howie's hair to punish or hurt him, but rather to attempt to get some type of positive response from the student. This type of behavior management was never approved prior to administration, by Ms. Torres, the school's behavior specialist, as required by written school policy. Della McYenna, a profoundly mentally retarded student in the Respondent's class was 17 years of age. This student was extremely sensitive and did not like being touched. On one occasion, while the Respondent was attempting to change Della's diaper on a small changing table, he placed tape on her leg. When the tape was yanked off Della's leg, the student flinched. The Respondent placed the tape on Della's leg because the student was squirming about which made it difficult to control the situation. Although the Respondent could have placed the tape on the table, out of convenience he elected to place the tape on Della's leg knowing that this student was extremely touch sensitive. Andrea Miller, a profoundly mentally retarded student in Respondent's class, had a habit of poking a finger into the corner of her eye, causing the eye to bulge out of its socket. If left untreated, this situation could ultimately result in the loss of the eye. In attempting to stop this behavior, the Respondent slapped Andrea's arm. The Respondent employed this technique to cause Andrea to stop attempting to poke out her eye. Prior to administration, this behavior management technique was never approved by Ms. Torres, the school's behavior specialist, as required by written school policy. Pamela Baker, a 17 year old profoundly mentally retarded student in Respondent's class, was confined to a wheelchair. While changing Pamela's diaper, the Respondent lightly tapped Pamela in the area of her mouth. This tap, however, was not sufficient to cause any bleeding. Apparently, Pamela caused the injury by hitting herself in the face when struggling with the Respondent. Although the Respondent is charged with striking Pamela on the foot with a ruler for pulling toys off a shelf, insufficient evidence was produced to demonstrate that this event occurred. After the Respondent's conduct was reported to Principal Diem in October, 1982, he was suspended from his position of employment and later dismissed by the Pinellas County School Board. Dr. M. Juhan Mixon, Director of Personnel Services, Pinellas County School Board testified that in his opinion, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board was seriously reduced based on the school board's finding that he had committed the acts charged and should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered suspending the teaching certificate of the Respondent Philip Arthur James for one year and placing him on probation for the following two years, during which period the Respondent be required to successfully complete additional appropriate college class work in the area of mentally and emotionally behavior management of handicapped students as prescribed by the Education Practices Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1983.
