The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke, suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2016). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 829054, covering the areas of Education, Leadership, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Holly Hill School in the Volusia County School District. Holly Hill School is a combined K-8 school. During the time in question, Respondent shared a small office with Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards. The office was formerly a teachers’ lounge/lunchroom. It still had a counter, sink, and refrigerator, and had bathrooms that continued to be used on occasion by other teachers. Each of the three teachers who shared the office had their own desk. The office also included two smaller tables at which the teachers could provide service to their ESE students when necessary. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Pollok knew Mr. Edwards, who had been in the ESE program, but did not know Respondent. The incidents described herein occurred between the start of the 2013-2014 school year on August 13, 2013, through late November, 2013, when Respondent was removed from the classroom. Racial Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent made numerous statements of a racial nature. While on hall duty between classes, Respondent would occasionally call African-American children “Bebe’s kids.” The reference was to an animated television show in which “Bebe’s kids” were unruly and ill-mannered African-American children. Mr. Edwards understood the comment to be derogatory, and noted that the children hearing the comment would occasionally react, even to the point of commenting that they did not want to be referred to as such. Respondent’s statements were also heard by Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who likewise understood the term to be derogatory, and observed that the children at the receiving end of the comment looked shocked. She advised Respondent that he should not call them that name. Ms. Pollok testified that Respondent routinely called children “nappy” during hall duty when students transition from one period to the next. The comments were directed to middle school students, whose reactions were perceived by her as being ones of humiliation or embarrassment.1/ Mr. Edwards testified that he heard Respondent refer to African-American children as “nappy,” though not with the frequency with which he called them “Bebe’s kids.” Respondent testified that he only called one child “nappy” at the request of the child, an ESE student -- though not one of his students -- who wanted to be called “napster” or “nappy.” There was no competent, substantial evidence to support that claim. No other teacher substantiated such a request, and Mr. Edwards and Ms. Burnam-Hoyt testified credibly that the term was used more broadly. In any event, as stated by Ms. Fisher, there would be no reason to address any student by that type of obviously inappropriate term, even if requested. Mr. Edwards perceived Respondent’s comments as inappropriate, and they made him uncomfortable. He believed, rightfully, that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable as well. There was no evidence that any student’s learning ability or mental health was actually adversely affected by Respondent’s racially-demeaning statements. Nonetheless, under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students at Holly Hill School from humiliation and embarrassment, conditions reasonably understood to be harmful to their learning environment and their mental health. Sexual Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent repeatedly made statements of a sexual nature. On occasion, when Ms. Pollok arrived to work in less than a cheerful mood, Respondent would state to the effect of “What's the matter, Pollo[]k, why are you grumpy? Am I going to have to go downstairs and talk to your husband about how to wake you up properly?” The first time he made the comment, he accompanied it with hip thrusts and grunts, i.e., sounds that people make when they're having sex, thus accentuating the sexual nature of the comment. The first time Respondent made the statement, Ms. Pollok felt awkward, left the office, and went to her husband’s classroom (he was also a teacher at Holly Hill School) where she stayed until the school day started. When he continued to make such statements on a more regular basis, it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards heard Respondent make the statement to Ms. Pollok on one or two occasions. Respondent denied having ever made the comments, attributing them to Mr. Anderson, who laughingly took credit. Regardless of whether Mr. Anderson may have also made comparable statements, the testimony of Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that Respondent made the statements at issue is more credible, and is accepted. Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who enjoys a well-known and long-term relationship with her wife, would occasionally visit the office. On one occasion, while in the presence of Mr. Edwards, Respondent told Ms. Burnam-Hoyt that she looked nice that day and said “I wish you would switch teams.” Though she gave an off-hand reply, Ms. Burnam-Hoyt did not discuss her sexuality, especially in the workplace, and was offended by the comment. On several other occasions, when Ms. Burnam-Hoyt was not in the room, Respondent commented in the presence of both Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that he wished “she didn’t bat for the other team.” On one occasion, when Ms. Pollok had returned from ESE training and asked Respondent about his day, he replied that “it was pretty boring until your old boss, what's her name, Mandy [Elzy], bent over and showed me her boobs.” Respondent commented, with regard to Anna Garces, that “she was spicy and he'd like to make her his consuela.” When Donna Mounts, a P.E. instructor, would come to the office, Respondent’s favorite phrase was that he “would like to mount Coach Mounts.” Respondent did not make the statement directly to Ms. Mounts, but he made it in the office on a routine basis. Respondent commented regarding Marcie Lockamy, an African-American assistant principal, that “I don’t normally do black ladies, but she’s pretty hot . . . I’d get at that.” Respondent’s denial that he made the statement, or that he even knew who Ms. Lockamy was, was not convincing. Respondent’s comments were repetitive, and he would make some statement every day. Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards told Respondent that he should “tone it down.” In particular, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that he advised Respondent “at different points” that his comments about women were not appropriate, not only because of his own view of the matter, but because he believed them to be disturbing to Ms. Pollok. The requests and recommendations had no identifiable effect. Mr. Anderson’s testimony in this case, apparently designed to exonerate Respondent and transfer responsibility for many of the statements to himself, was not persuasive, and in several instances, conflicted with the more credible testimony of other witnesses.2/ Respondent’s general defense to his sexual comments was that he was just “joking around,” that they occurred when he and the target of his comments “were talking and laughing and having a good time in between classes,” that they were a “jovial gesture,” and the like. He denied that they were perceived as offensive by any the persons within earshot, a statement denied by the persons exposed to his comments. Individually, Respondent’s comments could be categorized as puerile. Collectively, and over time, they rose to the degree that they created a hostile, abusive, offensive, and oppressive environment in the small office that constituted the workplace for the three teachers. Threatening Comments The Administrative Complaint alleges that, over the period of time in question, Respondent made “threatening comments to or around [Ms. Pollok].” As to comments regarding Respondent’s prior work- history as a police officer, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that they were nothing more than “experiences that people have or wanted to share.” Mr. Edwards did not take those statements as threatening. When Respondent discovered that he was being investigated by Holly Hill School, he was understandably upset. He made some comments that expressed his frustration. However, Mr. Edwards testified that Respondent did not threaten him or Ms. Pollok. Respondent admitted to being upset and frustrated, but denied either expressing, or having the intent to harm anyone. The comments, under the circumstances, were not so out of line as to objectively constitute a threat to one’s safety or welfare. Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s allegedly threatening statements created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment in violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Holly Hill School’s Response Ms. Pollok complained of Respondent’s behavior to various administrators at Holly Hill School, including Mr. Strother, and went so far as to request a reassignment of her duties so as to avoid Respondent. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Strother spoke with Respondent. The conversation was “short and brief,” and non-specific, with Mr. Strother generally advising Respondent to “be cognizant of conversations you're having and what you're saying around other people.” On or about November 4, 2013, Ms. Pollok renewed her complaint to Mr. Strother about Respondent’s comments about “the ladies,” and their looks and sexual preferences. Mr. Strother could tell that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards had also spoken to Mr. Strother regarding Respondent’s comments. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Strother sent out an email directing all teachers to have “professional conversations,” and to lead “by example with appropriate conversation.” Though the email was not specific, included other topics, and was sent to a number of Holly Hill School employees, it nonetheless should have placed Respondent on notice to heed not only Mr. Strother’s earlier advice, but also the earlier admonitions from Mr. Edwards and Ms. Pollok to “tone it down.” It did not have the intended effect. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Pollok reported Respondent’s unabated comments about women and those made towards students to Ms. Fisher. Ms. Pollok was upset and crying during their discussion. Ms. Fisher then spoke with Mr. Strother to confirm Ms. Pollok’s earlier complaints. Ms. Fisher reported the allegations to the school district, and on November 21, 2013, an investigation of Respondent’s conduct was initiated. The investigation delved into the sexually-inappropriate comments, and extended into areas that are not the subject of this proceeding, for which Respondent received a reprimand. As to the comments directed to students, which were determined to be violative of principles of professional conduct and school board policy for failing to protect students or exposing them to excessive embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days, and transferred from Holly Hill School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of one year, and a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. 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 23rd day of January, 2017.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent had good cause to reject the Escambia County School Superintendent's nomination of Petitioner to be principal of Woodham High School, and, if not, what relief should be granted to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Pensacola High School (PHS) is located in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. It is an inner city school of approximately 2000 students with a diverse population. Petitioner was appointed principal at PHS for the 1994- 1995 school year by Dr. Bill Malloy, the former Superintendent of Escambia County Schools. Petitioner served in that capacity until Superintendent Malloy transferred him in March of 1996 to the position of Director of Student Transfers. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent had a policy requiring principals to report incidents of suspected child abuse immediately to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)(currently the Department of Children and Families.) Another policy required principals to immediately report bomb threats to the district office and to proceed with the evacuation of the school property as instructed. Before school began in the fall of 1995, Petitioner assigned Kevin Sanders to be the teacher in charge of the In School Suspension (ISS) class. Petitioner made this assignment because Mr. Sanders previously had developed and successfully operated a similar class at PHS. The school district approved the plan at PHS for an ISS unit as designed by Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sanders also served as a weight training coach at PHS. He was not the only teacher/coach to run an ISS program for Respondent during the 1995-1996 school year. At least three other schools had coaches running their respective ISS programs in the fall of 1995. There is no persuasive evidence that the assignment of a coach to be in charge of an ISS class was in direct contravention of the Superintendent's instructions. No one ever told Petitioner that the Superintendent did not want a coach-like person in charge of the ISS class. Mr. Sanders wanted to work in the weight room at the stadium during the last period of the school day. Petitioner told Mr. Sanders that he could work in the weight room, provided he found someone to supervise his ISS class during that period. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Sanders had permission from Petitioner to take his ISS students to the stadium and leave them unattended in the bleachers. On October 16, 1995, a fifteen-year-old female student skipped school. The police returned the female student to PHS. As a consequence of her actions, the female student was temporarily assigned to the ISS class taught by Mr. Sanders. Normally, the female student attended a class for special students in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. She functioned academically on a third or fourth grade level. On October 17, 1995, Ms. Sanders took his ISS class to the stadium and told them to sit in the bleachers. He then went to the weight room leaving the class unsupervised. The female student went into one of the restrooms in the stadium. She performed fellatio on a number of male students, primarily football players, in the presence of many other students. In the fall of 1995, PHS had several deans who served the general student population. Richard Sousa was the dean of students for ESE participants. He also served as the crisis teacher for the total student population at PHS. On October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa saw a group of students outside the dean's office. When he investigated, Mr. Sousa found the female student sitting in a chair with her hands on her head. After Mr. Sousa closed the door to the deans' office, the female student stated that other students were falsely accusing her of performing oral sex with some boys. Mr. Sousa then took the female student to an ESE self-contained classroom so that she would not be harassed. Next, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother and reported the facts as he understood them. The mother told Mr. Sousa that her daughter was not sexually active. Mr. Sousa asked the mother to pick up her daughter from school because the child was visibly upset. Later that day, Mr. Sousa reported to Petitioner that he had heard a rumor about sexual activity occurring in the stadium, on the fifty-yard line, or on the practice field. Mr. Sousa told Petitioner that other students were teasing the female student who denied being involved in any sexual behavior. After receiving this report, Petitioner directed Assistant Principal Leo Carvalis to contact Coach David Wilson, the head football coach. Petitioner instructed Coach Wilson and Mr. Sousa to investigate the rumor regarding the sexual activity. Coach Wilson talked to the football team that afternoon. The team assured him that they knew nothing of any sexual incident in the stadium, the football field, or the practice field. Coach Wilson and Petitioner discussed the situation again later that day. Petitioner told Coach Wilson to continue to listen to what was going on among the students, to ask questions, and to make his findings known. Petitioner gave other members of his staff and faculty the same instructions. Petitioner wanted to determine whether there was any truth to the rumor about the sexual incident. He wanted to discipline any students involved, including football players. However, Petitioner did not want to accuse any student, including the alleged victim, of inappropriate behavior until he had more facts. At the end of the day on October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa did not believe that the sexual incident had occurred. He knew that special education students are often harassed, ostracized and picked on. Mr. Sousa thought the teasing would blow over and the female student could be returned to her regular classroom. Mr. Sousa expressed this opinion to Petitioner. For the rest of the week, Mr. Sousa took lunch to the female student in the ESE self-contained classroom because other students teased and pointed fingers at her. Mr. Sousa had to walk to the bus with the female student for the same reason. Nevertheless, Mr. Sousa continued to believe the rumor was false. His disbelief was based in part on the female student's persistent denials. Additionally, it was not uncommon for a rumor such as the one at issue here to prove to be unfounded. The next week, the female student requested that she be permitted to return to her regular ESE classes because she believed the teasing was over. Mr. Sousa granted the female student's request; however, after a couple of class periods, Mr. Sousa returned her to the self-contained classroom because even the special education students were saying things about her. Amanda Williams and Naomi Ferguson were guidance counselors at PHS during the fall of 1995. On October 26, 1995, Ms. Ferguson indicated to PHS Assistant Principal Sarah Armstrong that Petitioner knew about the sexual incident involving some of the football players. According to Ms. Ferguson, Petitioner was trying to cover up the situation because the football team was doing well. Later that day, Petitioner held a meeting in his office with Ms. Ferguson, Ms. Williams, Mr. Sousa, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Carvalis. During the meeting, Ms. Armstrong advised Petitioner that Ms. Williams had information from a male student (an informant) confirming the sexual incident but would not reveal her source because of confidentiality concerns. Petitioner asked Ms. Williams to speak with him in private. During their private conversation Ms. Williams revealed that an informant had given her information about a second male student who was involved in the sexual incident at the stadium. Ms. Williams gave Petitioner the names of both students. When he and Ms. Williams returned to the meeting, Petitioner stated, "I believe something must have happened. This is a credible witness." He also stated, "To hell with the football team. If these players can get away with this now, what will they think they can get away with in the future?" For the first time, Petitioner began to suspect that the sexual incident was factual and not an unfounded rumor. Ms. Ferguson revealed additional information about the female student at the meeting on October 26, 1995. Ms. Ferguson stated that the female student's mother intended to send her daughter to live with an uncle in Tampa, Florida. The female student did not want to make this move. The female student told Ms. Ferguson that the uncle had sexually molested her in the past. Ms. Armstrong stated that someone needed to call HRS to report the suspected sexual abuse by a family member. The group decided that HRS should also look into the allegations of sexual activity at the school. Petitioner instructed Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. He asked her to wait just long enough for someone to advise the female student's mother that an investigation was pending. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner ever intended to cover up the sexual incident. Likewise, he did not unreasonably delay his staff from reporting their suspicions to HRS. On October 26, 1995, Petitioner mistakenly understood that cases of suspected child abuse had to be reported to HRS within 24 hours instead of immediately. The last instructions he gave in the meeting on October 26, 1995, was to remind Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. She made that call on October 27, 1995. The female student was isolated from the general student population in the self-contained ESE classroom at PHS. Therefore, Mr. Sousa recommended at the meeting on October 26, 1995, that the school conduct an Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting to review the female student's placement. He believed that the female student should be transferred to another school so that she could attend classes with the general population. After receiving Petitioner's authorization, Mr. Sousa contacted the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) district staff to arrange for an IEP meeting. Mr. Sousa also called the female student's mother on October 27, 1995, to advise her of his recommendation. On October 27, 1995, Petitioner talked to the male student who, according to Ms. Williams' informant, participated in the sexual incident at the stadium. The male student confirmed that the sexual incident occurred in the stadium. However, there is no evidence that the student admitted his personal involvement in the sexual activity to Petitioner at that time. The police investigation later revealed that the male student was one of the students who had participated in the sexual incident. At the IEP meeting on October 31, 1995, the entire IEP team, including ESE teachers from PHS and Woodham High School (WHS), ESE district staff, and the female student and her mother, discussed the reasons for changing the student's placement to WHS. Everyone on the IEP team, except the female student, believed that she should be transferred to a new school environment with peers who did not know her. The female student begged her mother not to permit the transfer. However, the parent agreed that the transfer was in her daughter's best interest and offered to provide transportation. On November 1, 1995 or November 2, 1995, the female student was supposed to enroll at WHS. Instead, she returned to PHS. Mr. Sousa called the mother to pick up her daughter and take her to WHS. On November 3, 1995, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother. She stated that everything was all right with her daughter at WHS. On Monday, November 6, 1995, the female student's mother called Mr. Sousa because her daughter had run away from home. The mother wanted Mr. Sousa to be on the lookout for her daughter. During the conversation, the mother stated for the first time that the rumors about the sexual incident might be true because, despite her daughter's denials, it had been confirmed by one of her daughter's friends. Mr. Sousa informed Petitioner about the suspicions of the female student's mother. Petitioner then directed Coach Wilson to talk with the football team again. No one on the team would admit their involvement in the sexual incident. Petitioner also told the deans and the assistant principals to see if they could determine what had happened and who was involved. The efforts of the faculty and staff to verify the rumors were unsuccessful. On November 9, 1995, Petitioner received a letter from Ms. Ferguson suggesting that he was responsible for trying to cover up the sexual incident. He also received a call from Special Assistant to the School Superintendent Jerry Watson, stating that he had heard "bad things" were going on at PHS. Petitioner called a meeting with the appropriate PHS staff to discuss information about the alleged sexual incident. They reviewed information furnished by the male students and the female student's mother. During this meeting, Petitioner expressed his concern that someone in the group was acting unprofessionally by leaking confidential information about students to persons outside of PHS. Petitioner advised the group that he would try to transfer anyone who breached the students' confidentially. Petitioner did not make these comments to threaten or intimidate his staff and faculty or to cover up the sexual episode. After the meeting on November 9, 1995, Petitioner took Ms. Ferguson's letter to the district office where he met with Sherman Robinson, Deputy School Superintendent. Petitioner told Mr. Robinson about the facts leading up to the receipt of the letter. Mr. Robinson told Petitioner to contact Joe Hammons, the Superintendent's attorney, for advice as to the appropriate action. Petitioner then made an appointment with Mr. Hammons for Monday, November 13, 1995, because Friday, November 10, 1995, was a holiday. On November 13, 1995, Mr. Hammons met with Petitioner. At this meeting, Petitioner told Mr. Hammons what he knew concerning the sexual incident. Mr. Hammons then scheduled a meeting for November 14, 1995, with Petitioner, Mr. Robinson, and two members from the school district's risk management department. At the meeting on November 14, 1995, the group determined that information available from the male students and the female student's mother, justified contacting the Pensacola Police Department. Upon leaving that meeting, Petitioner contacted Sergeant Potts at the police department. The deans at PHS generally handled all disciplinary problems until they determined that a crime had been or might have been committed. At that point, the staff involved the school resource officer. In this case Petitioner relied on his staff to investigate the rumors of the sexual incident and did not involve the school resource officer. Until November 1995, Petitioner was not aware that, if the rumors of the sexual incident proved true, a crime had been committed. Shortly thereafter, Dusty Cutler of the Pensacola Police Department was assigned to investigate the sexual incident at PHS. On November 15, 1995, Officer Cutler talked to the female student who continued to deny all allegations. The female student did not admit to being involved in the sexual incident for several weeks after Officer Cutler began her investigation. Pursuant to Petitioner's suggestion, Officer Cutler also talked to the male student identified by Ms. Williams' informant as one of the participants in the sexual incident. The female student's mother told Officer Cutler that she did not want a police investigation. The mother became upset with the way Officer Cutler was talking to her. Petitioner complained to Lieutenant Knowles of the Pensacola Police Department about Officer Cutler's "abusive" behavior to the mother of the female student. From that time forward, Officer Cutler never spoke to Petitioner even though she spent six months investigating the sexual incident on a daily basis. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner interfered with Officer Cutler's investigation or failed to cooperate with her in any way. Officer Cutler reported the sexual incident to HRS. The agency gave her the same response they had given Ms. Ferguson, i.e., HRS would not investigate or follow the case because the sexual activity was not a rape and a family member was not involved. After Officer Cutler was assigned to the case, Petitioner was instructed by the school district to do nothing further until the police investigation was concluded. The Grand Jury released its Amended Report on Pensacola High School on April 15, 1996. The report indicted several male students involved in the sexual incident. Petitioner did not have an opportunity to discipline the students because he was not working at PHS at that time. In the spring of 1996, a number of middle school and high schools in the Pensacola area received bomb threats over the telephone. PHS received bomb threats on at least three occasions. The school evacuated to the adjoining football stadium on one occasion, to the fairgrounds on another occasion, and to Pensacola Junior College on a third occasion. On March 29, 1996, about 7:00 a.m., a school secretary, received a bomb threat call at PHS. Mr. Sousa received a second bomb threat call at PHS around 7:15 or 7:30. On both occasions the caller's voice was a raspy, young man's voice. The school secretary and Mr. Sousa recognized the voice of the caller as a young man in one of the self-contained classrooms. The student had created problems in the past. Each time he behaved improperly, the student would use his raspy voice. Mr. Sousa reported the first bomb threat to Mr. Carvalis. Mr. Carvalis called Petitioner at his home. Petitioner was not at school because he was not feeling well because he had been at the emergency room much of the night before. Petitioner instructed Mr. Carvalis to initiate a search. The search included a sweep of the stadium in case the school had to evacuate to that area. Petitioner advised Mr. Carvalis that he was on his way to the school. When Petitioner arrived at PHS, Mr. Carvalis informed him of the second threatening call. The staff again assured Petitioner that they knew the caller's identity, and that both calls had been made by the same student. The student was not at school. Therefore, Petitioner directed Mr. Sousa and the resource officer, Max Cramer, to go to the student's home and request the student's parent to bring the student to school. In the meantime, a third call was received from the same caller. Next, Petitioner phoned Deputy Superintendent Sherman Robinson. Petitioner explained to Mr. Robinson about the bomb threat and the school's discovery of the identity of the caller. Jones believed from his discussion with Mr. Robinson that his handling of the situation and his decision not to evacuate the school had the tacit approval, if not the explicit permission, of the district office. Petitioner believed Mr. Robinson concurred in his decision not to evacuate. The student with the raspy voice and his parent subsequently arrived at the school. After questioning the student, Petitioner believed the student was the caller. Petitioner decided to continue the search of the school without evacuating it. Petitioner directed Mr. Carvalis and the maintenance men to divide into teams and sweep the campus using the techniques taught by a handler of a bomb sniffing dog after previous threats. On one occasion a bomb sniffing dog and his handler came to PHS from Eglin Air Force Base in Ft. Walton. The PHS campus was so large that the dog got tired and refused to work about half way through the search. On that occasion, the search continued in the same manner employed by Petitioner on March 29, 1996. During the search on March 29, 1996, seven different groups looked for anything that was out of place. All of the deans had assigned areas where they searched trash bins, open lockers, and open classrooms. Later in the school day, Mr. Carvalis reported that the entire campus, including the portables, had been swept and nothing found. Petitioner does not dispute that he did not follow the Superintendent's policy regarding bomb threats on the day in question. Petitioner believed that he knew the identity of the caller. He also was concerned about the disruption that the bomb threats were causing to the academic programs at PHS. The students in the gifted program were preparing to take their advanced placement tests. The students in the International Baccalaureate program were studying for their exams. Additionally, March 29, 1996 was the last chance for some students to take the high school competency test before graduation. Superintendent Malloy was particularly concerned that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school. The previous day he had reiterated his policy of evacuation to all principals. However, Petitioner did not attend the meeting; one of Petitioner's assistant principals attended that meeting in his absence. On March 30, 1996, Superintendent Malloy placed Petitioner on administrative leave with pay, pending an investigation of his failure to evacuate PHS after a bomb threat. Superintendent Malloy subsequently assigned Petitioner to his current position as Director of Student Transfers. On June 3, 1996, Superintendent Malloy issued a letter reprimanding Petitioner for the following reasons: (1) failing to ensure that the ISS class had appropriate supervision; (2) failing to follow up on information regarding sexual activity in the stadium in a timely manner; and (3) failing to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. In November of 1996, Jim May was elected Escambia County School Superintendent. On or about June 10, 1997, the Commissioner of Education, Frank T. Brogan, filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner in Education Practices Commission (EPC) Case Number 956-1609-B. This complaint alleged that Petitioner failed in his responsibilities to ensure that all students under his charge were properly supervised. The complaint also alleged that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. On June 24, 1997, Superintendent May nominated Petitioner to be principal of WHS. At the time of the nomination, Superintendent May was aware of the relevant facts concerning the PHS sex incident and bomb threat incident. Additionally, he had been in contact with counsel for the Florida Department of Education regarding EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. Respondent rejected Petitioner's nomination to be principal of WHS. On a 3 to 2 vote, Respondent found good cause to reject the nomination based on the following: Among the reasons articulated by the three Board Members who voted against the nomination were, in addition to the reasons presented by the other speakers, Mr. Jones' unsatisfactory past performance of his duties when he served as Principal of Pensacola High School (which events were the subject of a grand jury report and are the subject of an administrative complaint by the Commissioner of Education now pending before the Education Practice Commission proceeding, . . . his lack of subsequent training to improve his skills in the areas in which his poor performance resulted in his 1996 removal as Principal of Pensacola High School, and his apparent violation of certain of the principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, in addition to gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty in connection with the Pensacola High School incidents. In sum the three Board Members who voted against the nomination felt that Mr. Jones is presently unqualified to be a Principal. After Respondent rejected his nomination, Petitioner told Superintendent May that it was unfair to the students of WHS to make them wait for a principal. On July 22, 1997, Superintendent May nominated another person to be principal at WHS. On or about November 6, 1997, the Florida Department of Education decided that it would withdraw its probable cause determination against Petitioner and enter into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with him. The department requested the Education Practices Commission to close EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. On or about March 9, 1998, Superintendent May advised the Florida Department of Education that Petitioner had performed his assigned duties and responsibilities in a professional manner during the period of January 10, 1997 and March 1, 1997. Petitioner had fully complied with all district and state rules and regulations. On or about March 26, 1998, Education Commissioner Brogan determined that there was no probable cause to suspend or revoke Petitioner's teacher's certificate. Petitioner was released from his Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the department. Petitioner holds the proper state certification for a high school principal. Except for the two incidents in question, Petitioner's performance at PHS was exemplary. Under his leadership, the school population was stable and well under control. Petitioner created an atmosphere at PHS where high quality performance on the part of a number of students was recognized, encouraged, and supported by the faculty and staff. Petitioner had an excellent relationship with students, teachers, and the PHS Advisory Council. Petitioner genuinely cared for the health, safety and welfare of the students at PHS. He was concerned more about the feelings and self-esteem of the students than with winning academic and athletic competitions, and he did not make accusatory judgments about his students until he had the necessary facts and proof to support those accusations.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order finding that there is no good cause to reject Superintendent May's nomination of Petitioner to be principal at WHS, promoting him to that position, and awarding him any back pay to which he may be entitled. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Cornell Lamont Steward (Respondent or Mr. Steward), violated sections 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2012), or sections 1012.795(1)(g) or (j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint,2/ and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state officer responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Steward held Florida Educator Certificate 1156507, covering the areas of biology and earth- space science, and was employed as a science teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Steward’s certificate expired on June 30, 2013. On September 7, 2011, Mr. Steward was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs with resulting damage to property or another person in Broward County, Florida. As Mr. Steward admitted, on April 3, 2013, he was found guilty by a jury on this charge. On December 6, 2011, there was an altercation between a 15-year-old male student, A.C., and Mr. Steward in his classroom at Miami Carol City Senior High School. The Commissioner offered no competent evidence regarding this event other than pre-hearing admissions of Mr. Steward and his testimony at hearing. Mr. Steward testified that he was teaching in his fifth- period class, which was a ninth-grade science class consisting of about 21 students, when there was a knock on the classroom door. A.C., who was a student with behavior and attendance problems, had moved to a seat near the door and offered to see who was there. Mr. Steward at first agreed, but then changed his mind and asked A.C. to remain seated, while Mr. Steward answered the door himself. At the door were three unknown students. A.C. then got out of his seat, stating that the unknown students were his brothers, and moved to the door to greet them. Mr. Steward testified that the students at the door caused a great amount of disruption in the classroom, and he turned around to quiet his students. He testified that as he turned his back to the door, he felt A.C. “violently” press his groin against Mr. Steward’s buttocks, which startled and frightened Mr. Steward, so he had to “remove [A.C.] from [his] personal space.” Mr. Steward testified that A.C. then positioned himself between Mr. Steward and his desk, which had the telephone. According to Mr. Steward, A.C. then stepped forward in a “violent motion” and threatening manner with his fists balled up and “chin checked” Mr. Steward. Detective Marin testified that “chin checking” was slang to describe a tap or touch on the chin primarily as a challenge, used to instigate a confrontation, but was not itself a punch. Mr. Steward testified that he “removed [A.C.] from [his] presence.” Mr. Steward said that then, A.C. moved toward him again with a threatening motion, and Mr. Steward responded: With my left hand I grabbed his right shoulder. With my left hand I grabbed his right shoulder and with my right hand I grabbed his left shoulder. With using his momentum I placed him on the ground, I did not throw him, I did not slam him, I placed him on the ground. He’s a very small person. As soon as I did that, I, I checked for my students who were in attendance to locate security. One or two of them left the class and then there began to be a stampede out of the classroom. From that moment on–-oh, oh, while I was holding him on the ground, A.C. began to violently struggle and make motions towards me. Then also the three other students began to grab and pull at me and grab, pull and push at me. Then for my own safety I didn’t know if these children were armed. I didn’t know anything, I let A.C. go and he and the three other students fled the classroom. Later that day, Principal Dunn was told that Mr. Steward had been in an altercation with a student. He asked the school resource officer, Tracy Moore, to investigate. The following morning, December 7, 2011, Principal Dunn called Mr. Steward to his office to discuss the incident. But for the meeting in Mr. Dunn’s office, Mr. Steward would have reported to his classroom. At the meeting, Mr. Steward’s behavior was a bit erratic. He was laughing, loudly and inappropriately, at the events of the previous day. Principal Dunn noticed that Mr. Steward’s eyes were glassy. Principal Dunn suspected that Mr. Steward was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Mr. Steward stated that his eyes were glassy and swollen because he was up the night before thinking about the incident with A.C. Principal Dunn called the region director and the Office of Professional Standards for advice on how to proceed. He kept Mr. Steward in his “custody,” so that Principal Dunn or the school would not be responsible if anything occurred. Principal Dunn completed a Reasonable Suspicion Form, noting that Mr. Steward had slow or inappropriate reactions, glassy and swollen eyes, and inappropriate laughter. He determined that there was probable cause to send Mr. Steward for a drug and alcohol screen. Mr. Steward was tested by LabCorp on December 7, 2011. The results were positive for marijuana. Mr. Steward’s exhibit offered to show that the lab sample which was tested was actually obtained on another day is not persuasive, and his argument that the test results should not be admitted is completely rejected. On January 5, 2012, a Conference for the Record was held with Mr. Steward, Mr. Dunn, Ms. Sherri Daniels of United Teachers of Dade, and Ms. Joyce Castro, district director. The events of December 7, 2011, and the test results were reviewed with Mr. Steward. He was given an opportunity to respond, but declined that opportunity. He was advised that a second positive drug test, refusal to submit to future drug tests, or failure to abide with rehabilitation directions could result in additional action, including dismissal. Mr. Dunn testified that the incidents had an effect upon Mr. Steward’s effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Cornell Lamont Steward, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2012), and section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2011). It is further recommended that the Commission impose upon Cornell Lamont Steward a fine of $3,000.00 and revoke his educator certificate for a period of three years, at the expiration of which time he may receive a new certificate by meeting all certification requirements of the state board current at the time of his application, subject to terms and conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission to be reasonably necessary to ensure that there will be no threat to students and that he will be capable of resuming the responsibilities of an educator. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 10th day of November, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida, more particularly a Title One teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School during the 1981-1982 school year. On May 6, 1982, John Cohn was a student in Respondent's fourth period class. Arnold Coats was a substitute teacher working with Respondent in Respondent's classroom on that day. After Respondent had given the students an assignment, Cohn requested and received permission to leave the classroom to go to the bathroom. While absent from the classroom, Cohn decided he wished to speak with Ronald Golemhieski, another teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School. Cohn returned to Respondent's classroom to request permission. Coats came to the door and gave Cohn permission to go talk to Golembieski, but Cohn decided he should get permission from Respondent since Respondent was the teacher of the class. Cohn waited in the doorway of Respondent's classroom. When he finally got Respondent's attention, he beckoned with his finger, requesting Respondent to come to the doorway. Respondent went to the doorway, and Cohn requested Respondent's permission to go talk to Golembieski. Respondent grabbed Cohn, pulling him forcefully into the classroom. Commotion broke out in the classroom, and someone yelled for assistance. Golembieski heard the commotion, as did Victoria Bell, the hall monitor. When they arrived at Respondent's classroom, Respondent and Cohn were struggling with each other. They were face to face, and Respondent had his arm around Cohn's neck with his hand on Cohn's throat in a choking manner. Golembieski grabbed Cohn away from Respondent and, after separating them, took Cohn to his classroom to calm him down. Bell and Coats pushed the rest of the students back into their seats and restored order in Respondent's classroom. When the altercation ended, Cohn's shirt was torn and he had scratches on his chest. Just prior to Respondent's outburst, Cohn did nothing to provoke Respondent in any way and was not disrespectful to Respondent. When Cohn got Respondent's attention, Respondent both looked at Cohn and walked to the doorway in a normal manner, thereby giving no warning that he intended to touch Cohn in any way. Respondent interpreted Cohn's beckoning with his finger as an invitation to fight, although Respondent admits that Cohn said nothing to him indicating that he wished to fight.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, approving Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, and denying any claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire 2929 SW Third Avenue, Fifth Floor Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(d), (g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2008), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), (e), and (f); (4)(b); and (5)(a) and (h), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed for the proven violations?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the certification and regulation of public school teachers in the State of Florida. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate number 807545, covering the area of varying exceptionalities, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as an exceptional education teacher at Crest School in the Citrus County School District (School District). She began her employment at Crest School in 2005. During her previous employment in Dade County, she had been named Teacher of the Year, and immediately prior to the incident at issue in this case, she was nominated as Crest School's candidate for Teacher of the Year in Citrus County. Crest School is a school limited to students with intellectual or behavioral disabilities. Safety Procedures at Crest School Students attending Crest School are exceptional education students who are required by state and federal law to have Individual Education Plans (IEPs) that are developed after an IEP meeting involving instructional staff and the student's parents. While an individual instructor can draft suggested changes in between IEP meetings conducted for a student, a teacher cannot unilaterally change a student's IEP. The student population at Crest School presents significant challenges in terms of student safety. The school has developed a "safe school plan" for which all personnel receive training. The safe school plan includes the use of "codes" for different levels of required intervention. A Code 1 signifies that the student is in control but is disturbing the educational process of other students. In this instance, the student is placed in time-out. Assistance is requested in order to have specific staff member(s), as opposed to a crisis intervention team, assist with the student. A Code 2 is called when a student is endangering himself or herself or others. In this instance, the Code 2 team is used, and Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) techniques are employed. A team approach is used, and decisions are formulated by the team as a group. The first priority is to ensure that everyone is safe, and then to use CPI techniques to, hopefully, diffuse the situation. Approaches used in response to a Code 2 include clearing the room of other students, and/or taking the disruptive student to a designated time-out area, which may be in the classroom or may be a separate Behavioral Transition Room (BTR), or a secured seclusion room. Respondent used the term "time-out" interchangeably, to reference use of any of the above-referenced locations. A Code requesting assistance is called by using handheld radios that most teachers, including Respondent, carried, or by pressing a call button in the classroom. Some if not all members of a Code 2 team should be able to respond in a minute or less. The CPI team response in a particular instance should be guided by the student's IEP, and what interventions are authorized for that student. In approximately April 2008, Crest School also adopted a policy that required signed parental consent before a student could be placed in a BTR. At the time of the incident at issue in this case, however, in practice, IEPs were not always followed because not all members of a CPI team were familiar with the IEP for the student whose behavior was at issue. Similarly, while parental consent forms were collected and kept in the office, whether an individual student's parents had given permission for use of a BTR would not necessarily be verified when an emergency situation arose. If a truly dangerous situation was at hand, the need for safety of all students would generally override the terms of an individual's IEP. There are no state or School District regulations regarding the use of seclusion areas like the BTR. The policies in place at Crest School were based on "best practices" bulletins received from the Department of Education. A BTR is a small room with no stimulation where a child could calm down. It has concrete walls, a tile floor and no furniture. Unlike a secured seclusion room, it can be opened from the inside. Each time a student is placed in a BTR, use of the room for the child is to be noted in a log book, and the parents of the student are supposed to be notified. Student R.K. R.K. is a student at Crest School who, at the time of the incident in January 2009, was twelve years old, about 5 feet, 6 inches tall, and described as very strong. R.K. suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder, and is classified as severely autistic. R.K. can be aggressive and sometimes violent, especially toward staff. From approximately 2005 until late January 2009, R.K. was in Respondent's class at Crest School. When R.K. had a tantrum, he would often sit on the floor on his knees and rock back and forth. From that position, he would sometimes lunge at staff and hit, scratch or punch, usually directed toward a person's upper torso. Respondent was familiar with, and had often been the recipient of injuries as a result of, R.K.'s behavior. An IEP meeting was held for R.K. in March 2008. Among the participants at the IEP meeting were Respondent and R.K.'s parents, both of whom are medical doctors. During the meeting behavioral strategies were discussed. R.K.'s parents did not want time-out to be used to address R.K.'s behavior and did not consent to use of the BTR or to secured seclusion. Shortly after R.K.'s IEP meeting, a Behavior Support Plan was developed for R.K. The Behavior Support Plan is extensive, and acknowledges his "challenging" behaviors. The Plan does not include time-out, but relies heavily on "planned ignore" strategies, redirection and positive reinforcement. The Behavior Support Plan is very specific in terms of interventions to be used for challenging behavior, and provides the following: At the first signs of challenging behavior call for back up. Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) Use the most effective and least intrusive CPI technique, to manage the challenging behavior at hand. --Instructional Calm Down If [R.K.] has a tantrum use instructional control by briefly prompting him to 'calm down' or 'cool off'. If he does calm down on his own or following this prompt state 'that's better'. If the behavior should continue or escalate, be prepared to intervene per procedure. Often [R.K.'s] expression of challenging behavior will not escalate if he is given time and space. Remember to only prompt him, wait five minutes and then prompt again. This is done 4 times 5 minutes apart. If he is obviously irritated or agitated do not continue to prompt him. Leave him alone until he has been calm for at least one minute. If he is a danger to himself or others he should be removed to a safe area. --Return to task * * * If [R.K.] is physically striking out, such as pinching, at either an instructor or another person, he is to be blocked. If he is in his workroom setting the instructor is to remove him or herself from the immediate area. Planned ignore requires that the instructor maintain a watch on [R.K.] but not give eye contact during the inappropriate behavior. When [R.K.] has been calm for one minute the instructor is to return to the work area saying, 'That's better. Good calming down [R.K.]' in a neutral tone. If [R.K.] engages in behavior that places himself or another in danger he should be moved to a safe area. If [R.K.] is striking out in a hallway or other open area of the school, a verbal statement is used, '[R.K.], No, Stop, hands down.' Planned Ignore is used after a verbal prompt if [R.K.] is no longer putting himself or others at risk. If he continues to strike out, the instructor will call for backup to bring [R.K.] to a quiet area to calm down. He should be calm for 1 minute before he is prompted again to go to the original destination. . . . An exception is made ot [sic] the planned ignore rule if [R.K.] must be removed for safety reasons. (Emphasis supplied.) While the Behavior Support Plan is not signed by either parent or any member of the IEP team, persuasive evidence was presented that the parents knew of and were supportive of the plan. It was Dr. V.K.'s understanding that the quiet area referred to was a portion of the classroom that was separated from the rest of the room by a curtain, and identified as a sensory area. The sensory area was dark and contained little stimulation, so R.K. could retreat and calm down. Notwithstanding the terms of the Behavior Support Plan, there were at least two incidents prior to January 23, 2009, when R.K. was placed in the BTR. While Respondent insists that R.K.'s parents were notified, no competent, persuasive evidence was presented that demonstrates that R.K.'s parents were ever specifically notified that the BTR was used. The January 23, 2009, Incident On Friday, January 23, 2009, R.K. was in Respondent's classroom. Respondent left the classroom at approximately 12:29 p.m., leaving the students under the supervision of teacher aides, including Ms. Murphy. Ms. Murphy took R.K.'s backpack from him, a move which he resisted. R.K. then sat on the floor and began rocking back and forth. He continued to sit, rocking, for several minutes. At approximately 12:36 p.m., a female student passed by R.K. on the way to her desk. It is unclear whether she spoke to him, but R.K. lunged toward the female student, who remained standing in front of him. Respondent walked into the room as R.K. was moving toward the other student. Respondent immediately took R.K. by the arm and started pulling him toward the door, into the hallway, and ultimately to the BTR. R.K. remained on his knees all the way to the BTR. Respondent testified that she believed the female student was in immediate danger, and decided to take R.K. to the BTR because she had other, medically fragile, students in her room that made movement of those students problematic. However, Respondent made no attempt to follow any of the techniques described in R.K.'s Behavior Support Plan, and did not call a Code 2 in accordance with Crest School procedure. She moved R.K. directly to the BTR as her intervention of first resort. The lights in the BTR had to be turned on by someone who had a key, and Respondent did not have a key to the BTR room. As a result, R.K. was placed in a dark room by himself, with Respondent sitting outside the room, monitoring him through a small window on the door. Respondent did not call anyone to assist by turning on the lights in the room. R.K. was placed in the BTR at approximately 12:37 p.m. One minute later, Mr. Elliott, another staff member approached with a wheelchair-bound student, who was placed in the BTR with R.K. Mr. Elliott was not concerned about the second student's safety while in the BTR with R.K. because R.K.'s aggression is normally directed at staff as opposed to other students. Both teachers struggled with R.K. as they attempted to leave the BTR. After two minutes, the second student was removed from the BTR, and again R.K. struggled with Respondent while the student was removed. At that time, Mr. Elliott was concerned about Respondent's safety because R.K. was attacking her. He did not observe any injury to R.K. At approximately 12:41 p.m., R.K. was able to open the door partway, and Respondent closed the door. It appears from the surveillance video (Petitioner's Exhibit 14) that R.K.'s hand was caught in the door and may have been injured at that time. It is unclear at what point Respondent knew that R.K. was injured, but the more persuasive evidence indicates that by 12:46 p.m., when Matt McCraine, another teacher at the school, walked by, Respondent was aware that R.K. was injured. There is no evidence to indicate that she understood the extent of his injury. However, she had not called for any nursing assistance. Mr. McCraine asked who was in the BTR and why the lights were off. When he indicated that the lights needed to be turned on, and Respondent responded that R.K. would need to be moved away from the door because he had cut his finger. Mr. McCraine opened the door and turned on the light to the BTR. At that time, he observed blood on the door and on the floor of the room. Mr. McCraine called for a nurse, who arrived at approximately 12:48 p.m. 911 was called and at approximately 1:06 p.m., paramedics arrived to transport R.K. to the hospital. R.K.'s parents were notified of the injury and requested that someone who knew R.K. accompany him in the ambulance, and Respondent did so. R.K.'s finger was fractured and severely lacerated. He was required to undergo surgery to treat the finger, and required anesthesia for the placement of sutures and for their removal. Events Following the Incident Following the January 23, 2009, incident, there were questions regarding whether R.K.'s parents had consented to the use of the BTR, and whether a parental consent form had been obtained. Mr. Posta, the principal at Crest School, asked Respondent to provide several documents related to R.K., including the parental consent form for use of the BTR for R.K. Respondent could not find a signed copy of the form. She asked one of her teaching assistants, Ms. Murphy, to cut the signature of one of R.K.'s parents from another document in his file. Ms. Murphy did so, and Respondent pasted the parental signature onto a blank permission form, and turned in the doctored form to administration. Anita Moon, an assistant principal at Crest School, examined the form and did not believe that the signature was authentic, and upon comparison, the signature did not match the signature on other official documents on file. She went to Respondent's classroom and asked for R.K.'s working file. One document was sticking out of the file, and Respondent started to remove the loose document before handing the file to Ms. Moon. Ms. Moon told her she needed the complete file. When Ms. Moon examined the file, she found the loose paper to be a daily note from R.K.'s mother. The note stated: Dear Ms. Heather [R.K.] had a good weekend. Regarding the permission for inclusion/secured seclusion time out -- may be we will discuss it in the IEP meeting next mth. before consenting to it. Have a good day! Thanks The signature from the note was missing and had been cut out. Also included in the file were unsigned consent forms for use of secured seclusion and isolation time out. Soon thereafter, there was an investigation of the incident resulting in R.K.'s injury. As part of the investigation, Respondent was interviewed. She told the interviewer that she placed R.K. in the BTR because when she came in the classroom, he was physically on top of the other student. The surveillance video of the classroom clearly shows that this was not the case. She also stated that R.K.'s parents had given written permission for R.K. to be placed in the BTR. When confronted with the doctored note and asked to explain, she admitted that she had taken the signature from the parental note and pasted it to the parental consent form. Respondent also admitted making the doctored form when she testified at hearing. She claimed that R.K.'s parents had consented to use of the BTR, and that when she could not find the signed forms, she panicked. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that no consent had been given to use the BTR for R.K. Respondent was terminated from her position at Crest School as a result of the events described above. The case received significant media attention in the local area, both in terms of print media and local television news coverage.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 1012.795(1)(d), and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (f); (4)(b); and (5)(a) and (h), as charged in Counts 1-4 and 6-9 of the Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for these violations, it is recommended that Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moses Green, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 232099, Graduate, Rank II. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega School during the 1976-1977 school year. Thereafter he was reassigned as one of three deans of students at Pinellas Park High School, and he served in this capacity during the 1978-1979 school year. Moses Green has been in the field of education since his graduation from Florida A & M University more than 21 years ago. After teaching several years in South Carolina and Georgia he came to Boca Ciega High School in Pinellas County in 1964 where he started as a teacher. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega High School from 1974 until 1977 when he was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as a dean of students. In October 1976 enroute from his home to school in a vehicle described both as a van and a motor home, Respondent stopped to give a ride to Jacqueline Blackshear and Stephanie Bellamy, two ninth grade students at Boca Ciega High School. When they entered the van Jackie sat on the housing covering the engine between the two front seats facing the rear of the van and Stephanie sat in the front right-hand passenger's seat. Enroute to school Respondent commented that Jackie was growing up and placed his hand on the inside of Jackie's thigh. At the time, Jackie was enroute to school for cheerleader practice and was wearing shorts. Jackie looked and moved towards Stephanie and Respondent removed his hand. Before arriving at school Respondent again placed his hand on Jackie's thigh and removed it when she moved. Upon arrival at school Respondent told Stephanie to get out as he wanted to talk to Jackie. When Stephanie left the van, Respondent was standing facing Jackie whose back was to the closed door. Respondent grabbed Jackie and attempted to kiss her. She pushed away, opened the door and left the van. When she left the van, Jackie was upset and Stephanie suggested she tell her parent. Near noontime Jackiie went to Gail Weston, a physical education teacher at Boca Ciega High School and told her about the incident in Respondent's van. Stephanie accompanied Jackie on this visit. Ms. Weston described Jackie as nervous and upset. After a few minutes of conversation Ms. Weston realized that it was not something she could handle and she told Jackie and Stephanie that they needed to tell their story at the Dean's office and she took them to Jean Johnson, a dean of students at Boca Ciega High School. There both girls told their story to Ms. Johnson who prepared a statement for them to sign. The story repeated to Ms. Johnson was essentially the same told to Ms. Weston. After typing up their statements, Ms. Johnson told Mr. Demps, the principal. He had the girls brought to him, where the story was again repeated. Demps called Respondent in and confronted him with the story. He also advised his area superintendent and the director of personnel, who investigated the allegations made by these two girls. Demps also arranged for a meeting with Jackie's and Stephanie's parents the following day. Following the investigation, Green, on October 19, 1976 was issued a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 1) for his role in the events that had come to the school's attention regarding the two girls noted above and warned that a recurrence of such conduct would result in dismissal. By letter dated 9 November 1976 Respondent was sent another letter (Exhibit 2) regarding a reported and inappropriate remark made by Green to another female student, which Respondent had denied, and the letter suggested Respondent and the girl take lie detector tests. By letter dated December 29, 1976 (Exhibit 3) the Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that the results of the polygraph test he had voluntarily taken indicated his answers were deceptive, while the girl's polygraph test indicated her responses were honest. Respondent was placed on probation for the remainder of the 1976-1977 school year and for all of the 1977-1978 school year. Although his principal at Boca Ciega High School, Mr. Demps, considered Respondent's effectiveness at Boca Ciega High School seriously impaired by the notoriety given to the events involving Respondent in 1976, he remained at Boca Ciega High School for the remainder of that school year. For the school year 1977-1978 Respondent was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as dean of students. Upon his transfer to Pinellas Park High School, Demps gave Respondent a good evaluation report. During Respondent's first year at Pinellas Park High School, no incidents were reported to form the basis of any of the charges here considered. This school year 1977-1978 included the probation period set by Exhibit 3. The school year 1978-1979, while Respondent was dean of students at Pinellas Park High School, produced the majority of complaints and testimony at this hearing regarding improper comments made to female students by Respondent, improper contact of a sexual nature with female students by Respondent, and corroboration of this testimony by other witnesses. Ten female students who attended Pinellas Park High School during school year 1978-1979 testified against Respondent regarding incidents between Respondent and these students of a sexual nature. Some of these incidents involved contact or attempted contact such as hugging, kissing or attempting to kiss, touching breasts or attempting to do so, and rubbing the front of his body against students' backsides when passing them when adequate room for passing without contact existed. Several testified to improper comments made to them by Respondent such as "You have a nice set of tits," "I'd like to get in your pants," "You have a nice pair of legs," "Why don't we go to a motel," "You drive an old man crazy," "You have a nice butt and look good in those pants," "One of these days it's going to be you and me," and similar comments regarding female students' anatomy. Much of this testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who overheard the remarks or observed the bodily contact. Additionally, some of the witnesses had complained to their parents or to other faculty members shortly after the incidents. Others first came forward with their complaints when they learned the police were investigating Green's conduct at the school and they became convinced their isolated incidents wouldn't appear unbelievable. Some of these students tolerated and perhaps encouraged the comments to provide them leverage to insure a cover-up for numerous "skips" of classes. Some of these witnesses skipped classes without punishment due to Respondent's position as dean and to whom their infractions were referred. Respondent denied each and every testimonial utterance of misconduct on his part while admitting the situation described by the witnesses, in which the improper actions of Respondent were said to have occurred, were real. During his testimony Respondent referred to school records which would corroborate his testimony, but he made no effort to produce these records or to account for their non-production. Respondent was subjected to three criminal trials on charges stemming from allegations of fact similar to those testified to in these proceedings. He was acquitted on charges alleging battery and false imprisonment and convicted of the offense of attempting to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Those trials resulted in considerable publicity and the allegations became well-known throughout the Pinellas County School System. Several witnesses testified that Respondent's effectiveness in the Pinellas County School System was totally destroyed by virtue of the notoriety gained by Respondent due to this adverse publicity.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated January 16, 2003, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed February 27, 2003, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002).3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz taught emotionally handicapped and seriously emotionally disturbed students in North Miami Beach High's Bertha Abbess exceptional student education program. He has been employed by the School Board since 1993, and is currently employed under a professional services contract. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz and at least one other person were making a music video for a course they were taking at Florida International University. Alvarro Gutierrez was working with Mr. Lefkowitz on the video, and Mr. Gutierrez had chosen the girl who would sing and would choreograph the dances for the video. Mr. Gutierrez did not, however, have any dancers, and Mr. Lefkowitz told Mr. Gutierrez that he knew some girls "from school" who were dancers and that he would ask them if they wanted to dance in the video. J.D. was, at the times material to his proceeding, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, although she was not a student of Mr. Lefkowitz. Rather, J.D. met Mr. Lefkowitz in a school hallway, while she was selling candy for her French class, and they apparently had several conversations during school hours. In one of these conversations, Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned that he was filming a music video for a college class. J.D. asked if she could be in the video, and Mr. Lefkowitz agreed and asked J.D. if she had any friends who could also dance in the video. J.D. introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to her friend N.F. N.F. was, at the time, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, but she did not know Mr. Lefkowitz until J.D. introduced them. Mr. Lefkowitz did not know at the time he met her that N.F. was a student at North Miami Beach High. J.D. also introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to Glamour Legros, whom she knew because she and Ms. Legros attended the same church. Prior to introducing Mr. Lefkowitz to Ms. Legros, J.D. had told him on a number of occasions how much Ms. Legros wanted to meet him.4 Ms. Legros and N.F. shared an apartment. Ms. Legros was not a student at the times material to this proceeding, and she was older than N.F. and J.D. J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros agreed to dance in the music video and went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment several times to discuss, rehearse, and shoot the video. Mr. Lefkowitz picked up J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros and drove them to his apartment on the occasions when they were working on the video. Mr. Lefkowitz also took J.D. and her friends home on these occasions. M.D., J.D.'s brother and a student at North Miami Beach High at the time, went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment once, and H.D., another student at North Miami Beach High, was at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment on at least one occasion, when she danced for the music video. These two students also rode with Mr. Lefkowitz in his car on at least one occasion. In addition to her visits to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment and her rides in his car, J.D. spoke with Mr. Lefkowitz numerous times on the telephone. When working on the video, J.D. went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment with her friends. She was alone with Mr. Lefkowitz once, after her friends left Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment; Mr. Lefkowitz took her home after about an hour. Mr. Gutierrez did not observe Mr. Lefkowitz engage in any improper behavior with J.D. or her friends at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment during the time they were discussing, rehearsing, and shooting the music video. On April 21, 2003, Ms. Legros called the police and she and N.F. reported that Mr. Lefkowitz had come to their apartment, beat on the door, and threatened them verbally. According to the police incident report, the police were dispatched at 10:09 p.m. and arrived at Ms. Legros's and N.F.'s apartment at 10:12 p.m. Mr. Lefkowitz had outpatient surgery on April 18, 2002. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother was with him at his apartment from April 18 through the morning of April 22, 2002, the day he returned to work. According to Ms. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz was in bed, asleep, on the night of April 21, 2002. On April 22, 2002, Raymond Fontana, the principal of North Miami Beach High, received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself to Mr. Fontana's secretary as J.D.'s aunt and who told Mr. Fontana that an exceptional student education teacher named "Neil" was having a relationship with J.D., a student at North Miami Beach High; the caller also reported that the teacher had been involved in an "incident" that had been reported to the police. Ms. Legros was the person who called Mr. Fontana.5 Mr. Fontana called Allyn Bernstein, an assistant principal at North Miami Beach High, into his office and asked her to look into the allegations made by the caller. Dr. Bernstein called Mr. Lefkowitz into her office and, before she could say anything, Mr. Lefkowitz told her that he knew why she had summoned him, that an ex-girlfriend had threatened to make trouble for him because he wouldn't give her money. When Dr. Bernstein questioned Mr. Lefkowitz about his relationship with the student J.D., Mr. Lefkowitz denied knowing her. Dr. Bernstein also called J.D. into her office. In response to Dr. Bernstein's questions, J.D. denied knowing Mr. Lefkowitz. She stated that she did not have a social relationship with any teacher outside of school and that she had never met any staff member outside school. After Dr. Bernstein reported to Mr. Fontana that she believed that there might be "something there,"6 Mr. Fontana reported the matter to the school district personnel, who referred the matter to the Miami-Dade School Police Department, and an investigation was initiated. Once the investigation was initiated, Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on alternate assignment at his home effective May 3, 2002. The investigator, Detective Victor Hernandez, interviewed N.F., Ms. Legros, J.D., H.D., M.D., and Mr. Lefkowitz. During the course of his investigation, Detective Hernandez was told that Mr. Lefkowitz and N.F. had dated and that they had had sexual intercourse. When Detective Hernandez interviewed Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz denied that he knew either J.D. or N.F. In a report dated September 2, 2002, Detective Hernandez described his investigation and set forth the substance of the statements given by the witnesses. Detective Hernandez concluded that the charges that Mr. Lefkowitz had violated Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.109 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 were substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on October 2, 2002, with Paul Greenfield, District Director, presiding. Mr. Lefkowitz attended the Conference-for-the-Record, together with the School Board's Director of Region II and Mr. Fontana. Mr. Lefkowitz requested that his attorney be allowed to attend, but this request was denied.7 Mr. Greenfield reviewed Mr. Lefkowitz's history with the Miami-Dade County public school system and presented the results of the investigation. Mr. Lefkowitz denied having met J.D. and N.F. and denied that they were ever in his apartment. After the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Fontana recommended to the Superintendent of Region II that Mr. Lefkowitz's employment be terminated. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein, to Detective Hernandez, and to the participants in the Conference-for-the- Record about his relationships with J.D. and N.F. because he knew it was improper for the students to be in his apartment and for him to associate with students outside of school. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed remorse at his behavior and acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate. J.D. testified that she and Mr. Lefkowitz never dated or had sexual intercourse. Ms. Legros testified that she did not know whether Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. had had sexual intercourse. She claimed, however, to have observed Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and acting like "boyfriend and girlfriend to me."8 Ms. Legros has no personal knowledge that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual relations with N.F., but testified that N.F. told Ms. Legros that she had had a relationship with Mr. Lefkowitz. An 11th-grade student testified at the hearing that he considered Mr. Lefkowitz to be a good teacher, a role model, and a teacher that he would remember after high school. Mr. Fontana testified that he thought Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired because of the "manner in which he dealt with students, having students come to his apartment, dealing with students that are out of the realm of his teaching responsibilities." Mr. Fontana observed that "once you breach that student/teacher relationship and you lose that professionalism I don't think you can ever go back and have the same degree of effectiveness as a teacher."9 In making his decision to recommend that Mr. Lefkowitz be terminated from his employment as a teacher, Mr. Fontana considered Mr. Lefkowitz's employment history with the Miami- Dade County public school system. Mr. Lefkowitz was twice referred for evaluation as to his medical fitness to perform his duties as a teacher and was twice found fit to perform these duties. Mr. Lefkowitz was the subject of three allegations of battery on a student, one in February 1995, one in February 1999, and one in March 1999; the February 1995 charge was substantiated,10 and Mr. Lefkowitz was given a verbal warning; the remaining two charges were unsubstantiated. Finally, in August 1995, Mr. Lefkowitz had an unacceptable annual evaluation, was given a TADS Category VII prescription in the area of Professional Responsibility, and successfully completed the prescription within the specified time. Summary The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is insufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz dated either J.D. or N.F. or that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual intercourse with N.F. The School Board presented no direct evidence establishing that J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a romantic relationship or that N.F. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a sexual relationship. The School Board relied exclusively on Ms. Legros's testimony to establish that these relationships existed,11 and most of her testimony was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge. Ms. Legros had no personal knowledge that N.F. had sexual relations with Mr. Lefkowitz, and the only behavior that Ms. Legros testified that she personally observed was Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. in Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and, in Ms. Legros's estimation, acting like boyfriend and girlfriend. Ms. Legros is found not to be a particularly credible witness, and her uncorroborated testimony is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. more likely than not were dating or that the hugging and kissing, if she indeed observed such behavior, was sexual in nature. Both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz denied having a romantic relationship, but it is difficult to credit fully their testimony, given that both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about knowing one another and that Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about being acquainted with N.F. However, on reflection and after a careful review of the evidence, the testimony of J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros. The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. on April 21, 2002, and threatened her or that he went to the apartment shared by Ms. Legros and N.F. on the night of April 21, 2002, and made threats to harm them. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother testified unequivocally that she was with Mr. Lefkowitz from April 19 through the morning of April 22, 2002, and that he was recovering from surgery and sleeping on the night of April 21, 2002. The School Board presented no evidence that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. and threatened her, and Ms. Legros was the only witness to testify that Mr. Lefkowitz came to her apartment and made threats. The testimony of Mrs. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros.12 The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz failed to exercise the best professional judgment, failed to maintain the highest ethical standards, and used his position as a teacher to his personal advantage by recruiting young women students to perform as dancers in the music video he was filming as part of a college assignment. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct: He had had a personal relationship outside of school with both J.D. and N.F.; J.D. and N.F. danced in a music video he made for a college project; J.D. and N.F. were in his apartment several times; and he drove J.D. and N.F. in his car to and from his apartment. The contents and tone of the written statement Mr. Lefkowitz adopted as his testimony supports an inference that he was on very familiar terms with both J.D. and N.F., and with Ms. Legros as well.13 Mr. Lefkowitz's poor judgment in developing significant social relationships outside of school with two female students at North Miami Beach High and his inappropriate behavior in having these students as guests in his car and in his apartment reflect poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. Mr. Lefkowitz also failed to exercise the best professional judgment and to maintain the highest ethical standards with respect to his dealings with the School Board during the investigation of his conduct. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein and Detective Hernandez and at the October 2, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record when he said he did not know J.D. or N.F., and he admitted at the final hearing that he lied because he knew that he should never have involved these students in making the music video, should never have given these students rides in his car, and should never have invited the students to his apartment. Mr. Lefkowitz's lack of truthfulness reflects poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz engaged in one instance of inappropriate behavior involving students M.D. and H.D. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that, on one occasion, he picked up these two students in his car and drove them to his apartment, where H.D. danced in the music video and M.D. observed Mr. Lefkowitz and cohorts filming the music video. Mr. Lefkowitz did not have repeated out-of-school contacts with these two students, as he did with J.D. and N.F., but his behavior with M.D. and H.D. reflected poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board, which consisted only of Mr. Fontana's conclusory and general statements, is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is, however, sufficient to permit an inference that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher was impaired. Mr. Lefkowitz encouraged students to develop personal relationships with him and to spend significant amounts of time with him in his apartment. Even though J.D., the young woman with whom he was primarily involved, was not a student in his class, his willingness to become involved with this student and her friends brings his personal and professional judgment into question and necessarily affects the school administration's assessment of his fitness for supervising high school students. It may also be inferred that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was also impaired because he lied to the principal and assistant principal of his school and to the regional superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system about even knowing J.D. By not being truthful with the school system administrators, Mr. Lefkowitz diminished his credibility as a professional educator.
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 that Neil D. Lefkowitz is guilty of having committed misconduct in office and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.09 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21; Suspending Mr. Lefkowitz without pay for a period of 24 months, retroactive to the date on which the School Board suspended him from his employment without pay; and Imposing such conditions on Mr. Lefkowitz upon his return to employment as the School Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 31th day of July, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence submitted and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following bindings of fact: The Respondent, Consuelo DeArmendi, holds a Rank I Florida teaching certificate #399385, expiring June 30, 1987, authorizing her to teach foreign languages in secondary education. The Respondent has been employed as a foreign language teacher by the Dade County school system for approximately eight (8) years beginning in 1978. Respondent was initially employed at Miami Palmetto Senior High School for the 1978-79 school and taught at Highland Oaks Junior High School for the 1979-80 school year. Beginning with the 1980-81 school year, Respondent taught Spanish and French at Miami Carol City Senior High School where she remained until her suspension on June 4, 1986. 1980-81 SCHOOL YEAR During the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent was late or absent from Miami Carol City Senior High School on many instances and failed to call the school office as prescribed in the Faculty Handbook. According to the handbook, which is provided to all teachers, a teacher is required to notify the school prior to leaving if the teacher is aware that he or she will be absent the following day. A teacher may also call a designated member of the clerical staff between 6:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. if they intend to be absent the following day but were unaware of the intended absence prior to leaving school. Finally, the teacher is allowed to report an unexpected absence to the school on the morning of the absence between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m. Advance notice of an absence allows the school to secure substitute teacher coverage for the class. For the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was observed and evaluated by her principal and rated "unacceptable" in preparation and planning, professional responsibility and supportive characteristics because of repeated absences and tardiness. On February 10, 1981, the principal placed the Respondent on extended annual contract for failure to improve her attendance at work and failure to comply with school policy regarding teacher absences. 1981-82 SCHOOL YEAR The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on November 11, 1981 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was found unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category VI - Teacher Student Relationships; and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on March 1, 1982 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category V - Assessment Techniques; Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships; and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent conducted on March 18, 1982 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships and Category VII - Professional Responsibility. The classroom observation of Respondent by Ms. Wally Lyshkov, the school district foreign language supervisor, conducted on April 15, 1982, resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. In particular, Respondent was found unacceptable in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category III - Classroom Management; Category IV - Techniques of Instruction; Category V - Assessment Techniques and Category VI - Teacher-Student Relationships. Ms. Lyshkov's observation of Respondent's teaching techniques and materials revealed that Respondent had a multi- level class (Spanish II and III combined), but only used one set of lesson plans. The lesson plans did not include the variety of activities that are usually and normally found in a multi-level class. The students tended to ignore any directions that Respondent gave and there was little, if any, exchange with the students. There was almost no activity or active participation on the part of the students, and Respondent was generally unaware of what the students were doing. During the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent received assistance and recommendations from Ms. Lyshkov on handling multi-level classes and assistance in establishing various student-directed and teacher-directed activities. In Ms. Lyshkov's opinion, the Respondent did not demonstrate an ability to deliver quality education or instruction because of her ineffectiveness in transmitting her knowledge to the students. During the 1981-82 school year, the principal became concerned with Respondent's excessive number of absences and her failure to comply with the school's procedures for calling in and reporting absences. In addition, the principal had received several complaints from students and parents concerning Respondent's excessive absences. On March 8, 1982, the principal gave her a notice of not complying with procedures and requested a formal conference to discuss Respondent's excessive absenteeism and student complaints. On June 3, 1982, Respondent was officially observed in the classroom by the principal and received an overall rating of acceptable. However, Respondent was rated unacceptable in Category VIII - Professional Responsibility, because of her consistent failure to follow guidelines in reporting her absences and her excessive number of absences which negatively impacted on the continuity of instruction provided to her students. In the Respondent's Annual Evaluation Report for the 1981-82 school year, the principal recommended that Respondent not be re-employed. The Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, professional responsibility and supportive characteristics (teacher contribution to total school program). Despite the principal's recommendation, Respondent was re-hired because she had already achieved continuing contract status. 1982-83 SCHOOL YEAR On January 26, 1983, the principal conducted a conference-for-the- record with Respondent. The conference was held because of Respondent's attendance record, lack of planning and failure to comply with instructions governing the reporting of absences. On several occasions, the Respondent failed to timely notify the school about her intention to be absent which resulted in difficulties obtaining a substitute teacher and often required another teacher to cover the Respondent's classes as well as his/her own class. In addition, teachers are required to have emergency lesson plans on file for use by substitute teachers when the primary teacher is absent. The Respondent did not have any emergency lesson plans on file. Respondent had been absent from her teaching assignment twenty-seven (27) days since the beginning of the 1982-83 school year. During the January 26, 1983 conference, Respondent informed the principal that she was taking medication (lithium) because of a manic-depressive disorder and that her most recent string of absences were due to a failure to take a proper dosage of the medication. The principal reminded Respondent of her responsibility to properly notify the school when she was going to be absent or tardy and referred her to the Employee Assistance Program. 1983-84 SCHOOL YEAR During October 1983, the Respondent was warned by the assistant principal on several occasions about her failure to properly inform the school regarding her absences. She was referred to the Faculty Handbook to review teacher's absences. Further, she was asked to prepare at least one week of emergency lesson plans to be used in her absence. Respondent did not prepare the emergency lesson plans as required. A classroom observation of Respondent conducted on November 22, 1983 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall "unacceptable" rating. In particular, Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category I - Preparation and Planning because she did not have adequate lesson plans for the subjects being taught. The lesson plans were not suitable for Respondent's mixed-level class because there was no distinction between student activities. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category IV - Techniques of Instruction because there was no distinction in instruction provided to the different levels and groups of students. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category V - Assessment Techniques because she did not follow school policy concerning grades which required at least one grade per week. There were only two or three grades on the roll book per student (this was the ninth week of school) and there was no rationale for the grades. Respondent did not maintain any records of student achievement other than what was on the roll book. Respondent was found "unacceptable" in Category VII - Professional Responsibility and Category VIII - Supportive Characteristics because of her excessive absences and her failure to follow proper procedure in reporting absences. The Respondent's excessive absences led to problems with continuity in student instruction as well as parental and student complaints. As a result of the observation on November 22, 1983, Respondent was given a prescription of planned activity which was designed to help her improve in these areas that had been rated unacceptable. On December 2, 1983, the Respondent was again warned by the assistant principal about reporting absences in a timely fashion. As was the case in most instances, the Respondent was absent and had failed to notify the school in a timely manner. A classroom observation of Respondent conducted on January 19, 1984 by the assistant principal resulted in an overall rating of "unacceptable". In particular, Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in Category I - Preparation and Planning; Category V - Assessment Techniques; Category VII - Professional Responsibility; and Category VII - Supportive Characteristics. For the 1983-84 school year, the principal rated Respondent as acceptable and recommended her for employment primarily because he had noted a sharp turnaround in Respondent's performance in the second half of the school year, starting in February, 1984. The principal knew that Respondent had been hospitalized in December 1983, and believed that as long as she was receiving medical attention and taking medication, she would be capable of performing in the classroom. 1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR At the conclusion of the 1984-85 school year, the principal rated the Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment. 1985-86 SCHOOL YEAR On October 4, 1985, the principal held a conference for the record with Respondent to discuss her continued excessive absenteeism, failure to timely notify the school regarding her absences and numerous parent and student complaints regarding the instruction in Respondent's classroom. On October 4, 1985, the school year had been in session for students for twenty-two (22) days. The Respondent had been absent 10 days and had only completed one full week of school without an absence. At a conference on October 4, 1985 with the principal, Respondent indicated that she was under medication and that the problems she was experiencing would be corrected. On October 17, 1985, the assistant principal conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom. Respondent was rated overall as "acceptable", but was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management because of an apparent lack of control over the students in her classroom. When the assistant principal entered the classroom, the teacher was sitting at the desk and seemed to have little or no control over the students. Only four (4) or five (5) students were participating in the class discussion and the balance of the 25-30 students in the classroom were combing their hair, talking, eating or doing whatever they chose to do. When Respondent noted the presence of the assistant principal, she began to shout loudly at the class in an unsuccessful attempt to gain control. After the October 17 observation, the assistant principal gave Respondent a prescription for classroom management which required her to plan instructional activity to cover the entire hour of the class, establish a seating chart, separate talking students, plan activities with other Spanish teachers for instruction, work with the guidance counselor and make parental contacts with students who were disruptive in class. Respondent did not comply with or perform the planned activities set forth in the prescription. On November 6, 1985, the principal directed Respondent to provide a doctor's statement whenever she was absent because of illness. Respondent was absent after the directive and did not comply with it or provide an explanation for her absence. Between November, 1985 and early February, 1986, the Respondent took leave. She returned to work on February 14, 1986 and shortly thereafter continued her pattern of absences. In early March, 1986 the principal scheduled a conference for the record with Respondent for March 5, 1986 to discuss several student and parent complaints which the school had received. The Respondent was absent and did not attend the conference scheduled for March 5. Although the Respondent called the school to report an intended one day absence, the school did not hear anything from Respondent nor anything of her again until March 14, 1986. On March 14 a corrections officer contacted the school and stated that the Respondent was in the Women's Detention Center on a charge of battery and was being held pending a psychiatric examination at Jackson Memorial Hospital. Respondent was absent from her school assignment from March 5 until May 7, 1986. This absence negatively affected instructional continuity and the quality of education provided to the students in Respondent's classes. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent from her work assignment for at least eighty (80) days. At the conclusion of the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was evaluated by her principal as "unacceptable" and was not recommended for employment. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in classroom management and professional responsibility. Throughout her period of employment, Respondent has undergone psychiatric medical treatment from at least five different physicians: Dr. Martinez, Dr. Garcia-Granda, Dr. Diaz, Dr. Metcalf and Dr. Vilasusa. Respondent has been diagnosed as a manic-depressive, characterized by periods of deep depression and/or extreme elation. It was uncontroverted that Respondent has an excellent command of her academic specialities--Spanish and French.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing Respondent from employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2274 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59 (2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner. 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/orsubordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/orsubordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Brown, Esquire Suite 301 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
