Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Dade County as a classroom teacher. During the 1980-1981 school year, Respondent was assigned to Southwood Junior High School as a science teacher. During that school year, Dr. E. L. Burck was the principal at Southwood. In August, 1980, Respondent applied for a part-time position teaching photography during the evenings at Robert Morgan Vocational Technical Institute. When Dr. John D. White, the vice principal at Robert Morgan, hired Respondent, he explained to Respondent that it would be necessary for Respondent to qualify for a teaching certificate in the area of photography. Respondent told White that he believed he was certifiable based upon his work experience and indicated to White that he would pursue the necessary steps to obtain his certification. At the time that White hired Respondent to teach part-time during the fall 1950 semester, White knew that Respondent was employed full-time at Southwood. During the fall 1980 semester, the administrators at Robert Morgan determined they wished a full-time program at Robert Morgan and decided that if enough students would be generated, they would need a full-time photography teacher in January, 1981. The possibility of a full-time position was discussed with Respondent. Respondent decided that if he could obtain a full-time position at Robert Morgan in January, he would pursue obtaining certification; however, if he could not obtain a full-time position, he would not pursue obtaining certification since it was difficult to teach full-time at Southwood in addition to part-time at Robert Morgan. During December, 1980, while enrollment was underway at Robert Morgan and it appeared probable that a full-time photography position would become available, Respondent spoke with Dr. Burck at Southwood regarding the possibility of transferring to Robert Morgan on a full-time basis beginning January 5, 1981, the first day of classes following the Christmas, 1980, vacation. Burck explained to Respondent the procedures relating to such a transfer of assignment and further explained that he needed to have definite information as soon as a final decision had been made so that he could initiate procedures for obtaining a teacher to replace Respondent. Just prior to Christmas vacation, Dr. White (as the potential "receiving principal") and Dr. Burck (as the potential "sending principal") discussed the possibility of the full-time photography class and the possibility of Respondent's transfer to Robert Morgan to teach that class. White explained that he did not yet know if the full-time class would materialize but that he would give Burck two weeks' notice in order that Burck could find a replacement teacher. Burck conveyed to Respondent the content of this conversation and advised Respondent that until such time as the class materialized and Respondent was replaced at Southwood, Respondent was still a staff member at Southwood and Burck expected to see him on January 5, 1981. Respondent did not report for work at Southwood on Monday, January 5, 1981, and failed to advise anyone at Southwood that he did not intend to return to teach his classes. Burck and another employee of Southwood attempted to locate Respondent. On January 6, 1981, White ascertained that there was sufficient enrollment for the full-time photography teacher's position at Robert Morgan. He instructed an employee at Robert Morgan to process the necessary paperwork to hire Respondent full-time. It was discovered that Respondent did not have, nor had he applied for, his vocational certificate covering the field of photography. Since White had told Respondent in August, 1980, to obtain certification and Respondent had apparently done nothing to do so, White gave to Respondent a deadline of Friday, January 9, 1981, to obtain verification of his ability to secure the proper teaching certificate. Also on January 6, 1981, White and Burck discussed Respondent's employment. White advised Burck that Respondent was teaching part-time at Robert Morgan and that there appeared to be a problem with Respondent's certification. Burck then talked with Respondent, and Respondent told Burck that he was teaching at Robert Morgan as a full-time instructor and that the certification problem would be resolved shortly. Burck told Respondent he needed an immediate resolution because Respondent's students at Southwood were without a regular teacher. Burck reminded Respondent that Respondent's assignment was at Southwood and that no transfer had been officially requested or granted. Burck contacted Dr. Thomas Peeler, South Area Director, and requested Dr. Peeler's assistance in resolving Respondent's status. On January 7, 1981, Dr. Peeler contacted White at Robert Morgan and advised White that Respondent was not reporting to work at Southwood. White had assumed that Respondent was reporting to his assigned school. Peeler instructed White to advise Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood the following day. On January 7, White told Respondent to report to Southwood the following day. On January 8, White again advised Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood. On January 9, White released Respondent from his part-time teaching assignment at Robert Morgan since Respondent had not achieved either obtaining the required certification or obtaining verification that he was in fact certifiable. Also on January 9, Burck contacted Respondent and advised Respondent that he had not been transferred and was still assigned to Southwood. On Monday, January 12, 1981, Dr. Peeler, the South Area Director, ordered Respondent to report to his teaching position at Southwood on Tuesday, January 13. Later that same day, Dr. Burck ordered Respondent to return to work on the 13th. Respondent told Dr. Burck that he would not return to work. On January 13, Dr. Peeler wrote Respondent, ordering him again to immediately report to his teaching assignment at Southwood. Peeler advised Respondent that his failure to report could result in suspension. In view of Respondent's continued refusal to obey orders, and in view of Respondent's advice to Burck the evening of January 12 that he would not report to Southwood to fulfill his teaching duties, a replacement teacher was located to fill Respondent's position as a science teacher at Southwood. Between January 5, 1981, and January 30, 1981, Respondent did not report to his assigned teaching position despite repeated orders from his superiors, Respondent knew that his place of employment had not been changed, and Respondent was absent from his teaching duties without leave. On January 30, 1981, a conference was held among Mr. Eldridge Williams, the Executive Director of the Office of Personnel for the Dade County Public Schools, Dr. Thomas Peeler, the South Area Director, and Respondent to discuss Respondent's repeated failure to report to work and Respondent's employment status. At that meeting, Respondent offered to return to work at Southwood on February 2, 1981; however, his position had been filled. Insofar as payroll status, Respondent was classified as absent without leave. No alternate position was available for placement of Respondent through the remainder of the 1980-1981 school year. On March 9, 1981, Patrick Gray, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Personnel, wrote Respondent regarding the south area supervisor's recommendation that Respondent be suspended or dismissed from employment. Gray's letter ordered Respondent to immediately return to Southwood or to resign or to retire in order that his employment status could be resolved. At the time he wrote that letter, Gray was not aware that Respondent's position at Southwood had been filled. In response to his letter of March 9, Gray received a letter from Respondent dated March 16, 1981, requesting another conference. A second conference between Respondent and Eldridge Williams was scheduled for April 2, but Respondent refused to meet with only Williams. Accordingly, a conference was scheduled for April 17, 1981, with Patrick Gray, Eldridge Williams, Dr. Peeler and Respondent. As a result of that conference, Respondent submitted a leave request dated April 22, 1981, requesting leave for the period of April 27, 1981, through the end of the school year in June, 1981. This request for leave was approved by Gray on August 7, 1981, retroactive for the period requested. A formal letter of reprimand dated October 13, 1981, was issued to Respondent as a result of his insubordination in refusing to report as ordered to Southwood Junior High School. During the 1981-1982 school year, Respondent was assigned to Redland Junior High School as a science teacher. Utilizing proper procedures, Respondent was absent on September 16, September 28, October 6, October 22, October 23, October 26, October 27, October 28, October 29, October 30, November 2, November 3, November 4 and November 5, 1981. On September 28 and October 6, Respondent utilized personal leave. On the other 12 days, he utilized sick leave. On November 5, 1981, Respondent advised Judy Cobb, Assistant Principal at Redland Junior High School, that he was looking for another job. Cobb advised Norman Lindeblad, Principal of Redland Junior High School, of this conversation with Respondent. On Friday, November 6, 1981, Respondent advised Lindeblad that he would not be returning to his teaching assignment at Redland Junior High School. Respondent told Lindeblad to fill Respondent's teaching position, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that he could not do so without receiving such directive in writing. Lindeblad advised Respondent that he expected Respondent to report to his teaching position on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, absent some other resolution of the problem such as approved personal leave or resignation. Late in the evening on November 9, 1981, Respondent telephoned Lindeblad at home and advised Lindeblad that he would not report on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, to teach his classes. On Tuesday, November 10, 1981, Respondent once again advised Lindeblad that he would not return to his teaching position at Redland. Respondent scheduled an appointment with Lindeblad on November 11 to finally resolve his status, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that unless verification of illness was provided, Lindeblad would commence recording Respondent's leave as leave without pay beginning on Friday, November 6, 1981. On November 11, 1981, Respondent appeared at Redland Junior High School and gave to Lindeblad a memorandum authorizing Lindeblad to replace Respondent in his science teaching position as of Wednesday, November 11, 1981. On November 16, 1981, the personnel office received an application for leave without pay from Respondent, which application was dated November 11, 1981, and which application requested leave effective November 11, 1981, due to Respondent's ill health. The portion of the application for leave requiring the signature and recommendation of the principal was not completed. Although the application required a statement from a physician justifying the request if the request were based upon ill health, Respondent provided only a short letter signed by a therapist possessing a degree in education stating that Respondent felt stress and frustration. No information regarding any physical symptoms, diagnosis or prognosis was volunteered. Since proper procedures require the principal's recommendation for extended leave, Lindeblad was asked to provide his recommendation to the personnel office. On November 18, 1981, Lindeblad sent a memorandum to the Office of Personnel stating that he did not recommend approval of leave for Respondent since no statement from a physician had been provided to verify Respondent's alleged ill health and because Lindeblad felt that the Respondent had begun unauthorized leave before he even requested leave. On November 19, 1981, Patrick Gray advised Respondent that Respondent's request for leave was not approved. Respondent was further advised that since he refused to carry out his teaching assignments for the second year in a row and since Respondent was simply attempting to obtain a teaching position in an area for which he was not certified and could not be certified, then Respondent's options were limited to either resignation or suffering suspension and dismissal proceedings. Respondent did not resign, and dismissal proceedings were initiated. Respondent was absent in accordance with proper procedures for the 14 days ending on November 5, 1981, as set forth in Paragraph numbered 24. Commencing on November 6, 1981, Respondent was absent without leave. Although Respondent eventually obtained verification of his work experience for the addition of photography to his teaching certificate, as of October 1, 1981, Respondent was still not certifiable for the reason that he still needed three full years of teaching experience and 14 semester hours of credit in vocational education courses. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Respondent had still not obtained a teaching certificate enabling him to teach photography.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination, incompetency, willful neglect of duty and absence without leave; dismissing Respondent from employment by the School Board of Dade County; and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 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 21st day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Robert F. McKee, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Lindsay Hopkins Building 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether the allegations contained in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner are true, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has employed Dr. Whalen since 1997. She first worked as a teacher at Gladys Morse Elementary School. When Morse closed she was transferred to Taylor Elementary School, a new school. She continued teaching at Taylor Elementary School until January 19, 2005. Her employment was pursuant to a professional services contract. Dr. Whalen holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 530568. Dr. Whalen has been confined to a wheelchair for almost 55 years. She cannot move her lower extremities and she is without feeling in her lower extremities. On January 19, 2005, she was approximately 58 years of age. During times pertinent Dr. Whalen taught a "varying exceptionalities" class. A "varying exceptionalities" class is provided for students who have a specific learning disability, or have emotional difficulties, or who have a physical handicap. She has been an exceptional student education teacher for about 20 years. She has never been disciplined by an employer during her career. In addition to her teaching activities she is also County Coordinator for the Special Olympics. The Commissioner of Education is the chief educational officer of the state and is responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system. The State Board of Education's mission includes the provision of certification requirements for all school-based personnel. The Education Practices Commission is appointed by the State Board of Education and has the authority to discipline teachers. Nonviolent Crisis Intervention Kathy Kriedler is currently a teacher at Taylor Elementary School. She is certified in teaching emotionally impaired children and has taught emotionally impaired children in Taylor County since 1983. She is an outstanding teacher who was recently named Taylor County Elementary School Teacher of the Year and Taylor County District Teacher of the Year. Ms. Kriedler is a master level instructor in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention, which is a program of the Crisis Prevention Institute. The use of skills associated with the program is generally referred to as CPI. CPI arms teachers with the skills necessary to de-escalate a crisis involving a student, or, in the event de-escalation fails, provides the skills necessary to physically control students. Ms. Kriedler has been the School Board's CPI teacher since 1987. CPI teaches that there are four stages of crisis development and provides four staff responses to each stage. These stages and responses are: (1) Anxiety-Supportive; (2) Defensive-Directive; (3) Acting Out Person-Nonviolent Physical Crisis Intervention; and (4) Tension Reduction- Therapeutic Rapport. The thrust of CPI is the avoidance of physical intervention when possible. The CPI Workbook notes that, "The crisis development model . . . is an extremely valuable tool that can be utilized to determine where a person is during an escalation process." It then notes, helpfully, "Granted, human behavior is not an orderly 1-4 progression." The CPI Workbook provides certain responses for a situation that has devolved into violence. CPI physical control techniques include the "children's control position" which is also referred to as the "basket hold." CPI also provides a maneuver called the "bite release" which is used when a child bites a teacher and the "choke release" which is used when a child chokes a teacher. CPI specifically forbids sitting or lying on a child who is lying on the floor because this could cause "positional asphyxia." In other words, an adult who lies upon a child could prevent a child from breathing. CPI holds are not to be used for punishment. The School Board encourages teachers to learn and apply CPI in their dealings with students. The use of CPI is not, however, mandatory School Board policy nor is it required by the State Board of Education. Dr. Whalen took and passed Ms. Kriedler's CPI course and took and passed her refresher course. She had at least 16 hours of instruction in CPI. She could not accomplish some of the holds taught because of her physical handicap. The alleged chain incident Ms. Amanda Colleen Fuquay taught with Dr. Whalen when both of them were teachers at Gladys Morse Elementary School. Ms. Fuquay, like Dr. Whalen, taught exceptional children. Ms. Fuquay's first teaching job after receipt of her bachelor's degree was at Morse Elementary School. At the time Ms. Fuquay began teaching, Dr. Whalen was also a teacher at Morse. The record does not reveal when Ms. Fuqua initially began teaching at Morse, but it was after 1997 and before August 2002, when Morse Elementary merged into the new Taylor Elementary School. During Ms. Fuqua's first year of teaching she entered Dr. Whalen's class. She testified that upon entry she observed a male student chained to a chair at his desk. The chain may have been about the size of a dog choker. She said that the chain ran through the student's belt loop and around the chair. Ms. Fuqua said that she inquired of Dr. Whalen as to the reason for the chain and she replied, in perhaps a joking way, that the student wouldn't sit down. The evidence does not reveal when this occurred or even in what year it occurred. The evidence does not reveal the name of the alleged victim. The evidence does not reveal the victim's response to being chained to the chair. The evidence does not reveal whether Dr. Whalen chained the child or if someone else chained the child or if it just appeared that the child was chained. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, and she testified at the hearing. She did not mention this incident. Ms. Fuqua could not discern if this was a serious matter or whether it was some sort of a joke. She said, "I didn't have a clue." Ms. Fuqua failed to report this incident because she was new to teaching and she had not, "learned the ropes." Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she had ever chained a student to a chair, and specifically denied that she had done it in 1999, which is within the time frame that Ms. Fuqua could have observed this. Moreover, she specifically denied having chains in her classroom. The Commissioner has the burden of proving the facts in this case, as will be discussed in detail below, by clear and convincing evidence. Undoubtedly, Ms. Fuqua saw a chain of some sort that appeared to be positioned in such a manner as to restrain the unidentified student. However, the lack of any corroborating evidence, the paucity of details, and the denial of wrong-doing by Dr. Whalen prevents a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of maltreatment. The alleged incident involving S.A. On August 13, 1998, at Morse, Ms. Kriedler was called by Dr. Whalen to her class. When Ms. Kriedler entered the class she observed Dr. Whalen holding S.A.'s arms to his desk with her right hand and holding the hair of his head by her left hand. She stated to Ms. Kriedler that, "If he moves a quarter of an inch, I'm going to rip the hair out of his head." Dr. Whalen also related that S.A. had kicked her. Dr. Whalen also said to S.A., in the presence of Ms. Kriedler, "Go ahead and kick me because I can't feel it." This referred to her handicap. By this time S.A. was motionless. After a discussion with Ms. Kriedler, Dr. Whalen released S.A. and Ms. Kriedler took him to her classroom. Subsequently, Ms. Kriedler requested that he be transferred to her class and that request was granted. Ms. Kriedler reported this incident to Shona Murphy, the Taylor County School District Exceptional Student Education Administrator. Ms. Murphy stated that Ms. Kriedler reported to her that that S.A. was flailing about and kicking when Dr. Whalen threatened to pull his hair. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide on August 13, 1998. She recalls S.A. and described him as a troubled young man who was full of anger. He would sometimes come to school appearing disheveled. He had blond hair that was usually short. Ms. Whiddon has observed him lash out at others with his hands. Ms. Whiddon was not present in the classroom when the incident described by Ms. Kriedler occurred. However, upon her return to the classroom, Dr. Whalen informed her that she had grabbed S.A. by the hair until she could control him. Ms. Murphy discussed the incident with Principal Izell Montgomery and Superintendent Oscar Howard in late August 1998. As a result of the discussions, these officials decided to video-tape Dr. Whalen's classroom, and to take no other action. Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she grabbed S.A.'s hair. Despite Dr. Whalen's assertion to the contrary and upon consideration of all of the evidence, it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Whalen grabbed and held S.A.'s hair and threatened to pull it out. Grabbing a student's hair is not an approved CPI hold. However, at the time this occurred Dr. Whalen was not required to use CPI methods. Grabbing a student's hair is generally unacceptable conduct unless, for instance, it is done in self- defense, or in order to protect the student or others. It has been not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that grabbing S.A.'s hair was impermissible. Dr. Whalen told Ms. Kriedler that S.A. had been kicking her. This statement raises the possibility that the action was initiated as a self-defense measure. When one considers that Dr. Whalen has limited mobility, and that her aide was not present, she was permitted to take reasonable actions to defend herself. Grabbing a student's hair may have been reasonable under the circumstances and, in the event, the record does not provide enough evidence to permit a determination. The video-tape of November 20, 2002 A video-tape, that included audio, and which was made part of the record of the case, portrays events on the morning of November 20, 2002. The video-tape was brought to the attention of the school administration by a parent who had received the video-tape from Dr. Whalen. The picture quality of the video is satisfactory but the audio is derived from a microphone near Dr. Whalen's desk. Therefore, it is clear that the microphone did not record all of the words spoken in the classroom at the time and date pertinent. Accordingly, facts found as a result of viewing the video-tape are limited to those which are clearly depicted by it. The School Board had discussed the wearing of apparel with representations of the Confederate battle flag on them in a meeting immediately prior to November 20, 2002. Early in the morning of November 20, 2002, there was a discussion with regard to the School Board deliberations among some of Dr. Whalen's students. The discussion came close to degenerating into physical conflict. This was reported to Dr. Whalen's aide, Ruth Ann Austin. It was further reported that some students called some of their fellow students "rebels," and others called other students "Yankees" and "gangsters." Assistant Principal Verges visited the classroom at the beginning of the school day, at Dr. Whalen's request, and he explained the matters discussed at the School Board meeting. Upon the departure of Assistant Principal Verges, Dr. Whalen unleashed a torrent of criticism upon her students addressing the subject of name-calling. Dr. Whalen spoke to the students in a loud and threatening tone of voice. While delivering this tirade, Dr. Whalen traveled to and fro in her motorized wheelchair. The video-tape revealed that this wheelchair was capable of rapid movement and that it was highly maneuverable. The lecture was delivered in a wholly confrontational and offensive manner. The lecture continued for more than 30 minutes. This behavior was the opposite of the de-escalating behavior that is suggested by CPI. However, Dr. Whalen had never been directed to employ CPI. S.O. was a student in Dr. Whalen's class and was present on November 20, 2002. He was a student of the Caucasian race who had, prior to this date, displayed aggressive and violent behavior toward Assistant Principal Verges and toward Ruth Ann Austin, Dr. Whalen's aide. Some on the school staff described him, charitably, as "non-compliant." S.O. was quick to curse and had in the past, directed racial slurs to Ms. Austin, who is an African-American. Because of his propensity to kick those to whom his anger was directed, his parents had been requested to ensure that he wear soft shoes while attending school. On November 20, 2002, S.O. was wearing cowboy boots and a Dixie Outfitters shirt with the Confederate battle flag emblazoned upon the front. Subsequent to Dr. Whalen's tirade, S.O. slid out of his chair onto the carpeted floor of the classroom. Dr. Whalen instructed him to get back in his chair, and when he did not, she tried to force him into the chair. She threatened S.O. by saying, "Do you want to do the floor thing?" When S.O., slid out of his chair again, Dr. Whalen forcibly removed S.O.'s jacket. Thereafter, Ms. Austin approached S.O. Ms. Austin is a large woman. Ms. Austin removed S.O.'s watch and yanked S.O.'s boots from his feet and threw them behind his chair. Dr. Whalen drove her wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair with substantial violence. Thereafter, Ms. Austin removed S.O. from the classroom. Removing S.O.'s jacket, watch, and boots was acceptable under the circumstances because they could have been used as weapons. The act of driving the wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair, however, was unnecessary and unhelpful. A memorandum of counseling was presented to Dr. Whalen by Principal Ivey on December 2, 2002, which addressed her behavior as portrayed by the video-tape. The S.O. and C.C. incidents Reports from time to time were made to Assistant Principal Verges, and others, that Dr. Whalen engaged in an activity commonly referred to as "kissing the carpet." This referred to physically taking children down to the floor and sitting on them. During April 2003, Dr. Whalen reported to Assistant Principal Verges and Ms. Kriedler that she had recently put two students on the carpet. During the four years Mr. Verges was Dr. Whalen's Assistant Principal, Dr. Whalen reported a total of only about four instances of having to physically restrain students. Dr. Whalen has never told Mr. Verges that she has regularly restrained children on the floor. Dr. Whalen's agent for using physical restraint is her aide, Ms. Austin, because Dr. Whalen's handicap does not permit her to easily engage in physical restraint. Ms. Austin physically restrained children five or six or seven times during the four years she was Dr. Whalen's aide. On four occasions a child actually went to the floor while being restrained by Ms. Austin. One of the two students who were reported to have been physically restrained during the April 2003, time frame was S.M. During this time frame S.M. became a new student in Dr. Whalen's class. S.M. was unhappy about being placed in a "slow" class. It was Ms. Austin's practice to meet Dr. Whalen's students when they exited the school bus in the morning. Accordingly, she met S.M., the new student. S.M. was "mouthy" when she exited the bus and would not get in line with the other children. S.M. and the rest of the children were taken to the lunch room in order to procure breakfast. While there, S.M. obtained a tray containing peaches and other food and threw the contents to the floor. Ms. Austin instructed S.M. to clean up the mess she made. S.M. responded by pushing Ms. Austin twice, and thereafter Ms. Austin put S.M. in a basket hold. S.M. struggled and they both fell on the floor. Ms. Austin called for assistance and someone named "Herb" arrived. Herb put a basket hold on S.M. while Ms. Austin tried to remove S.M.'s boots because S.M. was kicking her. S.M. was almost as tall as Ms. Austin and was very strong. At the end of the day, Ms. Austin was trying to "beat the rush" and to get her students on the school bus early. She was standing in the door to the classroom attempting to get her students to form a line. She and Dr. Whalen had planned for S.M., and another student, with whom she had engaged in an ongoing disagreement, to remain seated while the rest of their classmates got on the bus. While the line was being formed, S.M. and her fellow student had been directed to sit still. Instead, S.M. rose, said that she was not going to wait, and tried to push by Ms. Austin. Ms. Austin responded by asking her to sit down. S.M. said she would not sit down and pushed Ms. Austin yet again. Ms. Austin tried to restrain her and told the other students to get to the bus as best as they could because she was struggling with S.M. and was having substantial difficulty in restraining her. Ms. Austin asked for help. She and S.M. fell to the floor. S.M. was on the carpet. Dr. Whalen slid from her wheelchair and attempted to restrain the top part of S.M.'s body. Ms. Austin held the bottom part of her body and attempted to remove her boots with which S.M. was kicking. S.M. was cursing, screaming, and otherwise demonstrating her anger. Dr. Whalen talked to her until she calmed down. They then released S.M. The actions taken by Ms. Austin and Dr. Whalen were appropriate responses to S.M.'s behavior. The S.M. affair precipitated the C.C. incident. C.C. was a large male student who had no history of violence. C.C. teased S.M. about having been "taken down" by Ms. Austin. C.C., teasingly, told Ms. Austin, that he did not think Ms. Austin could take him down. Ms. Austin said she could put him in a basket hold which she did. C.C. challenged Ms. Austin to put him on the floor and she did. This was considered a joke by C.C. and Ms. Austin. This incident was nothing more than horseplay. As the result of the comments made by Dr. Whalen, addressing the S.M. and C.C. incidents, to Ms. Kriedler and to Assistant Principal Verges, a memorandum issued dated April 7, 2003. It was signed by Principal Sylvia Ivey. The memorandum recited that Dr. Whalen's comments raised concerns with regard to whether Dr. Whalen was using appropriate CPI techniques. The memorandum stated that Dr. Whalen's classroom would be video-taped for the remainder of the school year, that Dr. Whalen was to document each case of restraint used, that she should use proper CPI techniques, and that she should contact the office should a crisis situation arise in her classroom. The J.R. incident On January 19, 2005, J.R. was a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom. On that date, J.R. was a ten-year-old female and in the third grade. J.R. had been a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom only since about January 10, 2005. Dr. Whalen did not know much about J.R.'s history on January 19, 2005. At the hearing J.R. appeared physically to be approximately as large as Dr. Whalen. A determination as to exactly who was the larger could not be made because Dr. Whalen was seated in a wheelchair. Assistant Principal Verges found that J.R.'s physical strength was greater than average for an elementary school student on an occasion when he had to restrain her after she bit another person. J.R. brought a CD player to class on January 19, 2005, and after lunchtime, Dr. Whalen discovered it and confiscated it. Dr. Whalen took possession of the CD player because school rules forbid students to have CD players in class. Dr. Whalen put it in a drawer by her desk. When this happened, in J.R.'s words she, "Got mad." A heated discussion between Dr. Whalen and J.R., about the dispossession of the CD player ensued, but after a brief time, according to Dr. Whalen's aide, Angela Watford, "the argument settled." Even though Ms. Watford's lunch break had begun, she remained in the room, at Dr. Whalen's request, until she was satisfied that the dispute had calmed. Subsequent to the departure of Ms. Watford, J.R. approached Dr. Whalen, who was seated behind her desk working. The configuration of the desk and furniture used by Dr. Whalen was such that she was surrounded by furniture on three sides. In order to obtain the CD player, it was necessary for J.R. to enter this confined space. J.R. entered this space, moving behind Dr. Whalen, and reached for the drawer containing the CD player in an effort to retrieve it. When Dr. Whalen asked her what she was doing, J.R. said, "I am getting my CD player and getting out of this f class." Dr. Whalen told J.R. to return to her desk. J.R. continued in her effort to obtain the CD player and succeeded in opening the drawer and grasping the headset part of the CD player. Dr. Whalen attempted to close the drawer. J.R. reacted violently and this surprised Dr. Whalen. J.R. attempted to strike Dr. Whalen. Dr. Whalen reared back to avoid the blow and then put her arm around J.R. When J.R. pulled away, this caused Dr. Whalen to fall from her wheelchair on top of J.R.'s back at about a 45-degree angle. Immediately thereafter, J.R. bit Dr. Whalen several times. The bites broke Dr. Whalen's skin in three places and the pain caused her to cry. J.R. began cursing, screaming, and kicking. J.R. said she was going to "kick the s _ _ _" out of her teacher. In fact, while on the carpet, J.R. kicked Dr. Whalen numerous times. Dr. Whalen believed she would be in danger of additional harm if she allowed J.R. to regain her feet. This belief was reasonable. J.R. was in no danger of asphyxiation during this event because Dr. Whalen removed part of her weight from J.R. by extending her arms. Upon returning from lunch Ms. Watford spotted T.B., a boy who appears to be eight to ten years of age. T.B. was standing outside of Dr. Whalen's classroom and he calmly said to Ms. Watford, "Help." Ms. Watford entered the classroom and observed Dr. Whalen lying on top of and across J.R., who was face down on the carpeted floor, and who was cursing and kicking while Dr. Whalen tried to restrain her. Ms. Watford ran over to assist in restraining her by putting her legs between J.R.'s legs. J.R. thereafter tried to hit Ms. Watford with her right hand. Ms. Watford grabbed J.R.'s right arm and was severely bitten on the knuckle by J.R. The three of them ended up, Ms. Watford related, "in a wad." Within seconds of Ms. Watford's intervention, Frances Durden, an aide in the classroom next door came on the scene. She was followed by Takeisha McIntyre, the dean of the school, and Assistant Principal Verges. Ms. McIntyre and Mr. Verges were able to calm J.R. and safely separate her from Dr. Whalen. Then J.R. stated that Dr. Whalen had bitten her on the back. Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford went to the school's health clinic to have their wounds treated. The wounds were cleaned and Ms. Watford subsequently received an injection. While Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford were at the health clinic, J.R. was ushered in by Ms. McIntyre. J.R.'s shirt was raised and the persons present observed two red marks between her shoulder blades. Dr. Whalen said that the marks must have been produced by her chin or that possibly her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. She said that she had forced her chin into J.R.'s back in an effort to stop J.R. from biting her. Ms. McIntyre took photographs of the marks. The photography was observed by Mr. Verges. The photographs reveal two red marks positioned between J.R.'s shoulder blades. The two marks are vertical, parallel, and aligned with the backbone. They are from one, to one and one half inches in length. The skin is not broken. There is no wound. Teeth marks are not discernible. A teacher who has many years of experience in the elementary or kindergarten education levels, and who has observed many bite marks, may offer an opinion as to whether a mark is a bite mark. Mr. Verges has the requisite experience to offer an opinion as to the nature of the marks on J.R.'s back and he observed the actual marks as well as the photographs. It is his opinion that the two marks were caused by a bite. Ms. McIntyre, who has also observed many bite marks in her career, and who observed the actual marks as well as the photographs, stated that the marks were consistent with a bite. Registered Nurse Cate Jacob, supervisor of the School Health Program observed Julia's back on January 19, 2005, and opined that the red marks on J.R.'s back were bite marks. J.R. reported via her mother, the day after the incident, that she had been bitten by a boy on the playground of Taylor Elementary School, by a black boy with baggy pants, possibly before the incident with Dr. Whalen. Facts presented at the hearing suggest that it is unlikely that J.R. was bitten on the playground under the circumstances described in this report. T.B. was the only nonparticipant close to the actual combat who was a neutral observer. He did not see Dr. Whalen bite J.R., but did see her chin contact J.R.'s back and he heard Dr. Whalen say words to the effect, "I am going to make you say 'ouch.'" Dr. Whalen denied biting J.R. She stated at the time of the event, and under oath at the hearing, that she forcibly contacted J.R.'s back with her chin. She stated that it was possible that in the heat of the struggle her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. The opinion of the school personnel as to the origin of the marks upon J.R.'s back is entitled to great weight. On the other hand, a study of the photographs exposed immediately after the incident, reveals no teeth marks and no broken skin. The marks could be consistent with pressing one's chin upon another's back or pressing one's teeth in one's back. In the latter case, whether J.R. was bitten may be a matter of definition. Generally, a bite occurs when the victim experiences a grip or would like that experienced by Ms. Watford or Dr. Whalen in this incident. Although J.R. asserted that the marks occurred because of the actions of, "a boy on the playground," given J.R.'s general lack of credibility, that explanation is of questionable reliability. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not lend itself to a finding of the origin of the marks on J.R.'s back. Because proof by clear and convincing evidence is required in this case, it is not found that Dr. Whalen bit J.R. Principal Ivey's memorandum of April 7, 2003, specified that ". . . Mr. Howard and I informed you that we will video-tape your classroom . . . ." Thus it is clear that it was not Dr. Whalen's duty to cause the classroom to be video-taped. It is clear that for many months Dr. Whalen's classroom was video-taped and until the November 20, 2003, incident, none of her actions caused attention to be drawn to her teaching methods. It is found that the assault on Dr. Whalen was sudden and unexpected. Any actions taken by Dr. Whalen were taken in permissible self-defense. J.R. was suspended from Taylor Elementary School for ten days following this incident. Miscellaneous Findings Sylvia Ivey has been the principal of Taylor Elementary for three years. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen three times. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen as "effective," which is the top mark that a teacher may receive. From approximately 1997, when the S.A. hair pulling allegedly occurred, until December 2, 2002, not a single document was created indicating dissatisfaction with Dr. Whalen's teaching methods. Dr. Whalen's normal voice volume is louder than average. She would often elevate her already loud voice, intimidate students and pound on her desk. The aforementioned activities are not part of CPI. On the other hand, these methods worked for Dr. Whalen for 20 years. She was not required to use CPI until subsequent to the memorandum of April 7, 2003. There is no evidence that she failed to use CPI once she was required to employ it. As revealed by the testimony of Dr. Whalen, Ms. Kriedler, Assistant Principal Verges, Ms. Austin, and others, some of these children would strike, kick, bite, throw objects, curse, and hurl racial epithets at their teachers. Teaching some of these children was difficult.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of Counts 3 and 4, that she be issued a reprimand, that she be placed on probation as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.008, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 15th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Best and Brightest Scholarship as established and defined by section 1012.731(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact In 2015, the Legislature enacted, by way of a line item in the annual appropriations bill, the Best and Brightest Program to award cash scholarships to Florida teachers who have been evaluated as “highly effective” by their school districts and who scored at or above the 80th percentile (top 20%) on the SAT or ACT when they took the test. Ch. 2015-232, § 2, line item 99A, Laws of Fla.1/ In 2016, the Legislature enacted a stand-alone statute for the Best and Brightest Program, codifying the appropriations bill language and providing that the program is to be administered by the Department of Education (the “Department”). Ch. 2016-62, § 25, Laws of Fla., codified at § 1012.731, Fla. Stat. (2016). Rather than enacting a statutory scholarship amount, subsection (5) of the 2016 version of section 1012.731 provided that the scholarships would be awarded to every eligible classroom teacher “in the amount provided in the General Appropriations Act.”2/ The 2016 statute also explained that the Best and Brightest Program was intended to provide “categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic achievement.” § 1012.731(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 1012.01(2) defines “instructional personnel,” including “classroom teachers,” as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL.— “Instructional personnel” means any K-12 staff member whose function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K-12 personnel whose functions provide direct support in the learning process of students. Included in the classification of instructional personnel are the following K-12 personnel: Classroom teachers.--Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers. Student personnel services.--Student personnel services include staff members responsible for: advising students with regard to their abilities and aptitudes, educational and occupational opportunities, and personal and social adjustments; providing placement services; performing educational evaluations; and similar functions. Included in this classification are certified school counselors, social workers, career specialists, and school psychologists. Librarians/media specialists.-- Librarians/media specialists are staff members responsible for providing school library media services. These employees are responsible for evaluating, selecting, organizing, and managing media and technology resources, equipment, and related systems; facilitating access to information resources beyond the school; working with teachers to make resources available in the instructional programs; assisting teachers and students in media productions; and instructing students in the location and use of information resources. Other instructional staff.--Other instructional staff are staff members who are part of the instructional staff but are not classified in one of the categories specified in paragraphs (a)-(c). Included in this classification are primary specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, adjunct educators certified pursuant to s. 1012.57, and similar positions. Education paraprofessionals.--Education paraprofessionals are individuals who are under the direct supervision of an instructional staff member, aiding the instructional process. Included in this classification are classroom paraprofessionals in regular instruction, exceptional education paraprofessionals, career education paraprofessionals, adult education paraprofessionals, library paraprofessionals, physical education and playground paraprofessionals, and other school-level paraprofessionals. In 2017, the Legislature amended section 1012.731(3) to establish that the scholarship award would be $6,000 for those classroom teachers rated “highly effective” who also had the requisite SAT or ACT scores: (3)(a) To be eligible for a scholarship in the amount of $6,000, a classroom teacher must: 1. Have achieved a composite score at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based on the National Percentile Ranks in effect when the classroom teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded, unless the classroom teacher is newly hired by the district school board and has not been evaluated pursuant to s.1012.34. * * * In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible classroom teacher must submit to the school district, no later than November 1, an official record of his or her qualifying assessment score and, beginning with the 2020-2021 school year, an official transcript demonstrating that he or she graduated cum laude or higher with a baccalaureate degree, if applicable. Once a classroom teacher is deemed eligible by the school district, the teacher shall remain eligible as long as he or she remains employed by the school district as a classroom teacher at the time of the award and receives an annual performance evaluation rating of highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 or is evaluated as highly effective based on a commissioner- approved student learning growth formula pursuant to s. 1012.34(8) for the 2019-2020 school year or thereafter. Ch. 2017-116, § 46, Laws of Fla. The 2017 amendment to section 1012.731 also added a new subsection (3)(c), providing that lesser amounts could be awarded to teachers rated “highly effective” or “effective,” even if they could not demonstrate scores at or above the 80th percentile on the SAT or ACT: Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, for the 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, and 2019-2020 school years, any classroom teacher who: Was evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded shall receive a scholarship of $1,200, including a classroom teacher who received an award pursuant to paragraph (a). Was evaluated as effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded a scholarship of up to $800. If the number of eligible classroom teachers under this subparagraph exceeds the total allocation, the department shall prorate the per-teacher scholarship amount. This paragraph expires July 1, 2020. Id. By December 1 of each year, each school district must submit to the Department the number of eligible classroom teachers who qualify for the scholarship, as well as identifying information regarding the schools to which the eligible classroom teachers are assigned. § 1012.731(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. For the 2017-2018 school year, the December 1, 2017, submission deadline was extended to January 2, 2018, due to a hurricane. The School Board’s deadline for teachers to apply for the scholarship was accordingly extended from November 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. By February 1 of each year, the Department is required to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible classroom teacher to receive a scholarship. § 1012.731(5), Fla. Stat. By April 1, each school district is required to award the scholarship to each eligible classroom teacher. § 1012.731(6), Fla. Stat. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1012.731 to provide that a school district employee who is no longer a classroom teacher may receive the $6,000 award if the employee was a classroom teacher in the prior school year, was rated highly effective, and met the requirements of this section as a classroom teacher. § 1012.731(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature did not add a similar provision stating that former classroom teachers who are still school district employees remain eligible for the $1,200 and $800 awards. § 1012.731(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature funds the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board had no role in creating the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board is required to determine the eligibility of classroom teachers who qualify for the Best and Brightest Program pursuant to the requirements of the statute. Petitioners in this case claim entitlement only to the $1,200 award established by the 2017 version of the statute. Brenda Troutman, director of Instructional Personnel, is the School Board employee in charge of the Best and Brightest Program application and submission process. Ms. Troutman has worked for the School Board for 17 years. She has been a junior high classroom teacher and an assistant principal and vice principal at the high school level. Though no longer teaching in the classroom, Ms. Troutman retains her certifications in math grades 5-9, exceptional student education (“ESE”), educational leadership, and school principal. When working as a high school administrator, Ms. Troutman was the master scheduler for her school, meaning that she built the schedule for every teacher at the school. This task required that she become very familiar with the School Board’s course code directory. Ms. Troutman also had to understand the certification system in order to hire and assign teachers. If a teacher asked to teach a certain course, Ms. Troutman had to know both the course requirements and the teacher’s certifications to determine whether the teacher was eligible to teach the course. As part of her current position in the School Board’s human resources department, Ms. Troutman is required to know the School Board’s various job titles and descriptions. She is responsible for replacing obsolete job descriptions and posting current job descriptions on the School Board’s website. Ms. Troutman testified as to how she manages the application and submission process of the Best and Brightest Program. She starts by making herself familiar with any changes the Legislature may have made to the program. She then issues a notice to teachers about the program and the current eligibility requirements. For the 2017-2018 Best and Brightest Program, Ms. Troutman prepared a draft email that Superintendent Addison Davis reviewed and sent to all of the school district’s teachers and administrators on September 28, 2017. The email explained that to be eligible for the $6,000, $1,200 or $800 scholarship, an applicant must meet the definition of classroom teacher as set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Troutman developed the School Board’s application for the Best and Brightest Program, based upon her understanding of the statutory requirements. All completed applications for the Best and Brightest Program come into Ms. Troutman’s office. Ms. Troutman testified that she received approximately 2,000 applications for the 2017-2018 award. Ms. Troutman, with the aid of her assistant, reviews and verifies the information on the applications. If Ms. Troutman has any questions about an application, she seeks the opinion of her direct supervisor David Broskie, the director of Human Resources. In some cases, they also have discussions with Superintendent Davis and School Board Attorney David D’Agata. The School Board employs two major data programs. FOCUS is the program/database that holds all student information, including attendance, grades, disciplinary actions, test information, and demographics. TERMS is the program/database that houses all employee information. When verifying information on the Best and Brightest Program applications, Ms. Troutman uses both FOCUS and TERMS, and on occasion conducts additional investigation. The School Board’s application asks for the teacher’s assignment. Because the application was titled “2017-2018 Clay County Application: Florida Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship,” Ms. Troutman believed that the teachers were required to provide their 2017-2018 teacher assignments. As will be discussed in more detail below, the year of the teacher assignment was a major point of disagreement between Petitioners and the School Board. The application provided a checkmark system for the teacher to indicate which scholarship was being sought. The $1,200 scholarship line provided as follows: I am applying for the $1,200.00 highly effective scholarship. I have attached a copy of my 2016-2017 highly effective final evaluation (with student performance measures). The application’s language led Petitioners to believe that the 2017-2018 scholarship awards would be based on their teacher assignments and evaluations for 2016-2017. Ms. Troutman explained that this belief was incorrect. Eligibility for the 2017-2018 scholarship was based on a teacher’s assignment for the 2017-2018 school year. The plain language of the statute requires that one must be a “classroom teacher” in order to be eligible for the scholarship; having been a classroom teacher in a previous year does not suffice. Ms. Troutman stated that she verified with Mr. Broskie, Mr. Davis, and Mr. D’Agata that the School Board should base the award on the teacher’s 2017-2018 assignment. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the statutory language requires only an evaluation of “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. The statute is silent as to whether a teacher applying for the $1,200 scholarship must be teaching in a classroom situation during the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioners argue that the School Board is reading a requirement into the statute that is not evident from the plain language. Ms. Troutman further explained that the applications for the 2017-2018 scholarships were to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, as required by section 1012.731(3)(a)1. and (3)(c), the application requested the evaluation for “the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded.” Ms. Troutman testified that it is sometimes obvious from the teaching assignment that the teacher qualifies as a “classroom teacher.” If an application states that the assignment is “chemistry teacher” or “algebra teacher” or “fifth grade classroom teacher,” it is clear that the applicant meets the definition. Aside from verifying the assignment in the TERMS database, Ms. Troutman takes no further action. However, some applications require additional research before Ms. Troutman can conclude that the applicant qualifies as a classroom teacher. For example, Petitioner Abbie Andrews identified her assignment on her application as “classroom teacher.” Ms. Troutman went to TERMS and saw that Ms. Andrews was designated as an “ESE Support Facilitator” for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Troutman testified that ESE Support Facilitators are sometimes assigned to teach classes and therefore could be classified as “classroom teachers” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman examined both the master schedule and the teacher’s personal account in FOCUS to determine whether Ms. Andrews was assigned to teach any courses. Ms. Andrews had no teaching assignments for 2017-2018 in FOCUS. Ms. Andrews and fellow Petitioners Cherry Deaton, Donna Foster, and Danielle Perricelli held the position of ESE Support Facilitator during the 2017-2018 school year. The School Board concluded that these Petitioners did not qualify for the $1,200 scholarship because their schedules did not assign them the professional activity of instructing students in courses in a classroom situation, as required by the statute. It was undisputed that these Petitioners had been rated “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. It was also undisputed that Ms. Andrews, Ms. Deaton, and Ms. Foster met the statutory definition of a classroom teacher for the 2016-2017 school year. The School Board’s general job description for an ESE Support Facilitator provides as follows: The teacher is responsible directly to the Principal. He/she provides for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of assigned students on an as needed basis. He/she supports both general education and ESE teachers. He/she serves in a staff relationship with other teachers and supports and promotes ESE inclusion activities. (Emphasis added). The School Board contrasts this job description with that of “Classroom Teacher,” which provides: “The teacher is responsible directly to the principal for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of students.” The classroom teacher is fully responsible for the “instruction, supervision, and evaluation” of the students in her classroom, whereas the ESE Support Facilitator performs those activities only “as needed.” The School Board also points out that, unlike a classroom teacher, an ESE Support Facilitator is not required to be certified in-field for the position. The ESE Support Facilitator is not the teacher of record for any particular course. Their schedule is fluid. The ESE Support Facilitator comes and goes as needed (“pushes in,” to use the teaching vernacular) in the classroom, and is expected to be wherever the ESE student assigned to them needs their services. Sometimes they push into the classroom and sometimes they pull students out of the class to work on a specific concept or skill. An ESE Support Facilitator is assigned “contact students” for whom individualized educational plans (“IEPs”) are prepared. The classroom teacher of record is responsible for giving the student course credit or a grade and is responsible for recording attendance in FOCUS. One-third of the classroom teacher’s evaluation is tied to student performance. Only the classroom teacher has default access to FOCUS in order to enter attendance and grade information for the students in the class. An ESE Support Facilitator must seek and be granted access to student’s FOCUS information. An ESE Support Facilitator is expected to meet with each contact student at least once a month; in practice, these meetings tend to occur more frequently. The ESE Support Facilitator goes over accommodations the student needs and assignments the student did not understand. The facilitator reteaches the course material if need be and stays in touch with the student’s teachers and parents, making sure all stakeholders in the student’s success are on the same page. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that all of the students served by the ESE Support Facilitators in this case attended classes in regular classrooms, not in separate ESE classes. In such “inclusion” classes, the ESE Support Facilitator’s role is to push in and assist contact students in the regular classroom, ensuring that their IEP requirements are met and that the students are progressing satisfactorily through the course material. Based on these definitional and operative distinctions, Ms. Troutman considered ESE Support Facilitators to be “other instructional staff” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(d), rather than “classroom teachers” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Andrews was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Andrews met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Andrews was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, not assigned to teach any courses. In FOCUS, she was assigned as the “contact teacher” for approximately 60 students, meaning that she was primarily responsible for writing their IEPs and ensuring that they made adequate progress in their classes. She met with all of her contact students on an as needed basis, at least once per month but often as much as twice per week. However, Ms. Andrews was not listed in FOCUS as the teacher of record for any class. Even though she routinely pushed into classes to support her assigned ESE students, Ms. Andrews was not the primary teacher of record. She was there to assist her contact students with whatever they needed to learn the course, but the course was not assigned to her to teach. Ms. Andrews did not have a traditional classroom. She was not the teacher of record in any course for which students received academic credit, and she did not assign grades to students for the material she was teaching. Ms. Andrews prepared IEPs that were individualized to particular contact students. She did not prepare daily lesson plans in the manner of a classroom teacher. Ms. Andrews described her job as an ESE Support Facilitator as follows: My job is to teach, mentor, challenge students to make them -- make them ready for graduation, become productive members of society. I believe that’s the same thing a classroom teacher does. I am using the Florida standards to prepare lessons for remediation if a student needs it. I am constantly having conversations with not just students, but their parents, keeping them on track or making sure their students are on track because ultimately, a parent wants that student to graduate on time as well. I believe that the questions that are asked of me as a support facilitator are the same questions that parents would ask of a classroom teacher because they are very concerned. I am not just answering questions based on one classroom. I'm answering questions based on six classes. I'm responsible for that student being successful in six classes. The IEPs that I write, they're legally binding. I am involved in the academics, behavior, discipline. I deal with discipline problems. All of these things are the same things that a classroom teacher would deal with. I do not have a schedule in Focus; however, when a need arises, I'm there, I'm in a classroom, I'm helping, and I'm doing what's needed to be done for the kids to be successful. Ms. Deaton was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Deaton met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Deaton was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, with approximately 60 contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. She was not assigned to teach any courses. If she pushed into a class to support her assigned ESE students, she was not the primary teacher of record. She was not designated as a co-teacher,3/ but she would assist teaching classes on an as-needed basis if she was not busy testing students or preparing IEPs. For those classes, she was provided access to view grades in FOCUS, but she did not have access to give grades. She would meet students as needed in her office, in another teacher's classroom, or in the computer lab. She did not develop lesson plans on her own, but provided suggestions and advice on lesson plans to the primary teacher. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Deaton did not have a classroom or teach a classroom full of students. She had no schedule assigned to her in FOCUS, but had contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. Ms. Foster was employed as an English/language arts and ESE Inclusion Teacher during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught four classes as ESE inclusion teacher. The remaining two periods were devoted to her position as ESE department head. Ms. Foster had a schedule in FOCUS. She had her own classroom and students, prepared daily lesson plans, and assigned grades. Students in her classes received academic credit. Ms. Foster was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Foster met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. Ms. Foster was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator and ESE department head during the 2017-2018 school year. She retired at the end of the school year, effective June 7, 2018. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Foster did not have a set schedule. Ms. Foster’s assigned ESE students did not receive academic credit for the services she provided, but her assistance was integral in helping them pass their courses. Ms. Foster assisted with an American history class during the 2017-2018 school year, but was not assigned as the primary teacher in FOCUS. Ms. Foster testified that she did not believe she had ever been identified as a co-teacher in FOCUS, though she thought she should have been. Ms. Foster testified that she had IEPs for the American history class that listed both the class setting and the service delivery method as “co-teach.” She explained that because the class had both general education and ESE students, the teacher had to be certified in both the subject matter and ESE. Because the primary teacher was certified only in the subject matter, it was necessary for Ms. Foster to co-teach the class. Ms. Foster testified that she split lesson plan preparation with the primary teacher. Ms. Foster believed she was not listed in FOCUS as the co-teacher because the school administration never bothered to remove the name of Kristin Heard, the ESE teacher originally assigned to the class, who was moved to a science class early in the year. Ms. Foster pursued the matter with the assistant principals at Lakeside Junior High, but nothing came of it. Mallory McConnell, the principal at Lakeside Junior High School during the 2017-2018 school year, confirmed that Ms. Foster was not listed as a co-teacher on the master schedule. Ms. McConnell testified that in 2017-2018 there were no “true co-teacher” situations, by which she meant two teachers who equally shared responsibility for the instruction and grading of every student in the class. Ms. McConnell was aware of situations in which a student’s IEP mandates co-teaching in a class, but she testified that she was unaware of any student at Lakeside Junior High School in 2017-2018 whose IEP required a co-teacher. Ms. McConnell conducted infrequent walkthrough observations of the American history class. She testified that she saw Ms. Foster providing support services to the ESE students but never saw Ms. Foster teaching at the front of the class. Ms. McConnell stated that she would not have expected to see Ms. Foster teaching the class or creating lesson plans for the class as a whole because those tasks were not her job responsibility. Ms. McConnell was in no position to state whether Ms. Foster did, in fact, prepare lesson plans and teach the class. Ms. McConnell was able to state that for at least one month during the school year, Ms. Foster administered tests to her ESE students, meaning that she could not have been co- teaching the American history class. Ms. Foster did not tell Ms. Troutman that she had assisted teaching the American history class during the 2017- 2018 school year, nor did she include such information on her application for the Best and Brightest Program, because she believed the award was based upon her position in 2016-2017 and because she believed the school administration’s failure to include her as teacher of record in FOCUS was an “in-house” issue. Ms. Perricelli was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator, ESE department head, and MTSS intervention team facilitator at Orange Park Junior High School. “MTSS” is an acronym for Multi-Tiered System of Support, a framework for providing support to students who are struggling academically or have an identified need in a specific area such as speech, language, or behavior. MTSS interventions may be used for regular education or ESE students. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not the teacher assigned by FOCUS for any class in 2016-2017. In addition to her regular ESE duties, Ms. Perricelli taught “grade recovery” to two students in language arts, science, and math. Grade recovery is a class offered to students who have failed a course and lack the credits to move on to the next grade level. Ms. Perricelli designed lesson plans and curriculum assessments for each subject, graded papers and tests, and reported the students’ grades to the school. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not given the authority to enter the grade recovery students’ grades into FOCUS in 2016-2017. She requested a course code but was never provided one. Ms. Perricelli taught grade recovery for two periods, one for each student. For the other four periods of the school day, Ms. Perricelli would push into classrooms and work with ESE students, usually in small groups with students who needed remediation. She had around 40 contact students and developed IEPs for each of them. Most of her contact students were in the classrooms that she was going into, so she would see them throughout the week. She would meet with her other contact students about once a week. Ms. Perricelli would work with the assigned teacher to modify the course material to meet the needs of the ESE students. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated as “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year, based on standard classroom teacher criteria. She was observed working with her grade recovery students and in the classrooms in which she pushed in. Ms. Perricelli testified that her assignments were the same for the 2017-2018 school year. She taught one student in a grade recovery course. Due to her persistence, Ms. Perricelli was able to get a course code from Ms. Troutman for the grade recovery course in 2017-2018. The grade recovery course was named “Unique Skills.” In 2017-2018, Ms. Perricelli was assigned around 70 contact students for whom she prepared IEPs. As department head, Ms. Perricelli oversaw 22 ESE instructors. She was the only ESE Support Facilitator at the school. Janice Tucker was vice principal at Orange Park Junior High School in 2017-2018. She testified that early in the school year, the assigned teacher for seventh grade math left for another county. A long-term substitute, Lashonda Campbell, took over as teacher of record. Ms. Perricelli testified that she developed some of the curriculum in Ms. Campbell’s math classes, which included ESE and non-ESE students. She stated that she taught the class alone once a week when Ms. Campbell started, then tapered off into pulling out small groups of ESE students who needed remediation. She worked with four periods of seventh grade math classes that year. Ms. Perricelli testified that she gave grades to students in those courses and gave them to Ms. Campbell for entry into FOCUS. Ms. Tucker testified that Ms. Perricelli was not a co- teacher for the math class. Ms. Campbell was the teacher of record. Ms. Tucker testified that when she observed the math class, she saw Ms. Perricelli working with small groups in the back of the class or at a table in the hallway, and Ms. Campbell at the front teaching the class. Ms. Tucker never saw Ms. Perricelli at the front of the class teaching. Ms. Tucker conceded that she had no knowledge whether Ms. Perricelli was involved in creating lesson plans or assigning grades for the math class. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated by Ms. Tucker for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Tucker observed Ms. Perricelli in the seventh grade math class and in the Unique Skills class. Ms. Perricelli was again rated “highly effective.” Ms. Perricelli testified that she did not mention teaching the math class on her scholarship application. She stated that she did not tell Ms. Troutman about the math class because at the time, the school was still attempting to get a full-time teacher for the class. Ms. Troutman obviously knew about the “Unique Skills” class, having issued the course code to Ms. Perricelli. Ms. Troutman testified that she consulted with Mr. Broskie and Mr. D’Agata as to whether having one assigned class in FOCUS should qualify Ms. Perricelli for the scholarship. They concluded that teaching one class with one student was insufficient to qualify as a “classroom teacher” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman testified that this conclusion was consistent with the School Board’s historic practice of considering two or more classes as the “cutoff” for a classroom teacher. Ms. Troutman believed that if an ESE Support Facilitator taught two classes, then she would qualify as a “classroom teacher.” Petitioner Easter Brown taught a fourth grade classroom at Grove Park Elementary School during the 2016-2017 school year and was rated “highly effective.” It is not disputed that Ms. Brown met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Brown was a full-time SPRINT specialist. “SPRINT” stands for Supervisor of Pre-Interns and New Teachers. SPRINT specialist is a support position for teacher trainees and new teachers, operating under an agreement between the School Board and the University of North Florida (“UNF”), each of which pays half of the SPRINT specialist’s salary. Ms. Brown taught field classes at UNF and conducted workshops for clinical educator training and professional development. Ms. Brown kept Grove Park Elementary as her home base and shared a classroom there with two other teachers. She taught UNF students in classes at the university and worked with new teachers at the school. She estimated that she spent half her time at UNF and half at Grove Park Elementary. Ms. Brown had no K-12 courses or K-12 students assigned to her in 2017-2018. She had no courses assigned to her in FOCUS. She gave grades to only UNF students. Ms. Brown did not create traditional lesson plans but did assist new teachers in writing lesson plans. Ms. Brown testified that she did some teaching in a regular classroom for purposes of modeling teaching techniques for her student teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clay County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Petitioners Abbie Andrews, Cherry Deaton, and Donna Foster were not eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were not classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year; and Finding that Petitioners Easter Brown and Danielle Perricelli were eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year, and directing staff to take all practicable measures to secure the scholarship monies for Ms. Brown and Ms. Perricelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of March, 2019.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent John H. Hopkins, Jr., has been employed with the Pinellas County school system since 1961. He has taught in elementary, junior high, middle and high schools. In addition to sick leave, a teacher employed with the Pinellas County school system is entitled to the following days of leave without loss of pay: two days per year for emergency or extenuating circumstances and two days per year for personal leave. These days are charged to the sick leave allowance of the teacher. In the 1976-77 school year, respondent was a science teacher at Disston Middle School. When a teacher has unused days which can be charged to sick leave, it is the established practice at Disston for the teacher to notify the assistant principal in advance when he intends to be absent and to complete the paperwork when he returns to duty. If a teacher does not have days accrued which can be charged to sick leave, he must take leave without pay. Leaves of absence without pay must be approved in advance by the county personnel office. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on January 17, 1977, a Monday, respondent telephoned Robert Twitty, the assistant principal at Disston and told him he would not be at school for the rest of the week. Mr. Twitty asked for the reason, and respondent informed him that he was going to Washington, D.C. for President Carter's inauguration. Twitty told respondent to call Mr. Tom Zachary, Disston's principal, and notify him of respondent's plans. Respondent did attempt to call Mr. Zachary at his home, but Zachary was out. When Zachary got home, he returned respondent's call, but was unable to reach him. On January 17, 1977, respondent, had one and one-half days remaining which could be charged to sick leave. Respondent did not return to school that week. On January 21, 1977, a Friday, the Pinellas County schools were closed due to cold weather. This decision to close the schools was not made by the Superintendent until approximately 9:30 p.m. on January 20, 1977. On Sunday evening, January 23, 1977, respondent again called Mr. Twitty at home and advised him that he would not be returning to duty at Disston on Monday because he was going to the county office to resolve some problems. Respondent telephoned Mr. John Hudson, the assistant superintendent for personnel, on Monday, January 24, 1977, but Hudson was not in. On Tuesday, January 25th, respondent had a doctor's appointment which took about two hours. He did not report to work on this day or for the rest of the school week. On Wednesday, January 26th, respondent spoke with Hudson on the telephone. While Hudson could not recall the substance of this conversation, It was respondent's recollection that Hudson told respondent to report back to Disston on Monday, January 31st. Dr. Douglas McBriarty, petitioner's director of instructional personnel, telephoned respondent on January 27, 1977, and told respondent that he had spoken to Superintendent Sakkis and, by his direction, respondent was to report to work the following morning. Respondent did not report to Disston on January 28th. At the hearing, respondent had no recollection of having talked to Dr. McBriarty on January 27, 1977. On the morning of January 31, 1977, respondent reported to work at Disston. He was called into Principal Zachary's office and was told that Dr. McBriarty would be coming out to the school later to discuss respondent's absence from school. Respondent then went up to his classroom. Assistant principal Twitty came into respondent's classroom and told him that Zachary wanted to see his lesson plans. Feeling that he was being harassed by Zachary, respondent told Twitty that he was leaving school and going to Clearwater to the county offices. As respondent was walking out to his car, Mr. Zachary came out to the parking lot and told respondent not to leave because Dr. McBriarty was coming. Respondent left the school and did not return. By letter dated February 2, 1977, to respondent from Superintendent Sakkis, respondent was notified that he was suspended from his duties at Disston without pay beginning Monday, January 24, 1977, and that it would be recommended to the School Board that he be dismissed. This action was based upon charges that respondent had been guilty of being absent without leave, misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. These charges were supplemented and amended by pleadings dated May 25, 1977, and June 27, 1977. Respondent had previously been suspended by the School Board without pay from March 4 through March 19, 1976. This action was based upon misconduct in office in that respondent had been absent without proper authority. (Exhibit No. 2) Prior to being transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975,. respondent taught biology and general science courses for five years at Dixie Hollins High School. Kenneth Watson, then principal of Dixie Hollins, had numerous problems with and complaints about respondent. These involved the grading and disciplining of students in his classes, the quality of his teaching, refusal to admit to his class a student who had been given an admission slip by the dean, the school's receipt of telephone calls and messages for respondent unrelated to his teaching assignments and respondent's relationship with his students. Although respondent was the first black teacher at Dixie Hollins, Principal Watson did not conceive respondent's problems to be of a racial nature. He felt that respondent's difficulty was the manner in which he handled students and presented materials to them. Dr. McBriarty observed respondent's classes at Dixie Hollins on three or four occasions and found that respondent was not able to communicate with students and that there was not a satisfactory teaching relationship between respondent and his students. Feeling that respondent was no longer effective at Dixie Hollins and in order to allow him an opportunity to improve his performance, it was determined by respondent's superiors that he should be transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975. This was to be a temporary transfer until a position was available in another high school. Prior to his transfer to Disston, respondent ordered from Westinghouse Learning Corporation a biology course instructor's kit for a 30-day on-approval examination. The invoice was addressed to respondent at Dixie Hollins High School, and the total amount due if the materials were not returned within 30 days was $177.25. The merchandise was ordered by respondent without a prior purchase order and was not returned within the 30-day period. When the bill from Westinghouse came to the attention of the school, which was after respondent had been transferred to Disston, inquiries were made. No one seemed to know where the kit was. The materials were finally returned to Westinghouse some months later and the charge was cancelled from the School Board's account. There was no evidence that respondent ever personally requested the school or the county to pay for this material. Although respondent was dissatisfied with being assigned to teach in a middle school in lieu of a high school, his first semester's performance at Disston Middle School was without serious criticism and his principal's appraisal ranged from good to excellent. His problems began when he was reassigned to Disston for the 1975/76 school year, and intensified during the 1976/77 school year. On the "instructional appraisal and improvement form for 1975/76, Principal Tom Zachary rated respondent as unsatisfactory in the areas of classroom management, preparation and organization, and attitude and growth. Zachary urged respondent to take part in middle school certification. Respondent was again assigned to Disston for the 1976/77 school year, although he had requested a transfer to a high school. Due to the poor evaluation for the previous year, in August of 1976, Principal Zachary prepared and discussed with respondent a list of objectives and directives to help improve respondent's instructional abilities and his evaluation for 1976/77. (Exhibits 12 and 13) During the first semester of the 1976/77 school year, several of respondent's superiors visited his classroom. Principal Zachary observed respondent's classes on several consecutive days in November of 1976. During his first days' observation, the students were assigned to copy materials from the blackboard. When he visited the class the following day, no reference was made by respondent to the blackboard material. Zachary found the students to be inattentive to respondent with respondent providing no signs of direction, no continuity and no teaching techniques. In Zachary's opinion, no learning was taking place and respondent's classes were completely disorganized. Area assistant superintendent Lee Benjamin observed three of respondent's classes on December 14, 1976. While he found the second period class, a class of higher ability, to be satisfactory, the first and third period classes were observed to be chaotic with no real learning or discipline occurring. Mr. Benjamin felt that the students did not understand what the assignment was due to the unclear nature of respondent's instructions. It was Benjamin's opinion that respondent had great difficulty with teaching and discipline and therefore was not effective. In early January of 1977, science supervisor William Beggs visited three of respondent's classes. While he found the second period class to have some degree of order and direction, the first and third period classes were observed to be highly disorganized. The students did not appear to understand what they were supposed to accomplish and respondent was not adhering to his lesson plans. Upon a review of respondent's lesson plans, Beggs did not feel that respondent was covering the subject matters expected of a seventh grade life science course. In late November of 1976, respondent was involved with the TORC (teacher renewal) program. Dr. Shelby Ridel, a resource teacher for petitioner, observed respondent's classes to be utterly chaotic, with no pattern or continuity in the tasks to be performed. The students were confused by the assignments given them, and respondent would not answer their questions. He often sent students out to the hall for disciplinary reasons. While respondent appeared cooperative with and receptive to the changes suggested by Dr. Ridel, she saw no real improvement in his classes over the several weeks she worked with respondent. She felt that respondent's greatest problem was classroom management. Assistant Principal Twitty, who was responsible for the discipline of Disston students, experienced more than usual discipline problems with respondent's classes. Respondent was told on numerous occasions not to put students out in the hall for disciplinary reasons. Nevertheless, he continued to do so. Such action not only violated school policy; it also was disruptive to teachers in nearby classrooms. Along with several other teachers, respondent was assigned to an interdisciplinary team to work with students and their parents. As a part of his responsibilities, he was to prepare the science section of a newsletter. He often failed to attend the team meetings and, on at least one occasion, he failed to prepare his section of the newsletter. Prior to his departure from Disston in January of 1977, respondent had checked out a tape recorder and several books from the school library. He had also borrowed from Dr. Ridel a seventh grade science curriculum guide. The tape recorder was returned by respondent in April of 1977, and the other items were not returned until June or July, 1977. Respondent's explanation for this delay was that no one had requested the return of these materials and that he did not want to go back to Disston after his suspension. Respondent admitted that his classes gave the appearance of being chaotic and disorganized. It was his explanation that he utilized an individual, systems approach to teach his students and that his superiors did not understand or approve of this teaching technique. He further explained the adverse reaction by his superiors to his classroom techniques by emphasizing the lack of teaching materials and equipment made available to him at Disston, his inexperience in teaching sixth and seventh grade students and his desire to return to high school teaching.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is recommended that respondent's teaching contract be cancelled and that he be dismissed as an employee of the Pinellas County school system. Respectfully submitted and entered this 26th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518 George M. Osborne, Esquire Rutland Central Bank Building 55 Fifth Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Suite 990, Lincoln Center 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's educator's certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint filed on November 7, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Richard T. Vaughn, Jr., is licensed as a teacher having been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 678116 by the Department of Education. The certificate covers the area of sociology and was valid through June 30, 1995. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at the Marion Regional Juvenile Detention Center (MRJDC) and The Phoenix Center in the Marion County School District. Based on conduct which occurred during school year 1993-94, on May 19, 1994, respondent was suspended from his teaching position by the Marion County School Board (Board). After an administrative hearing was held in December 1994, a final order was entered by the Board on March 31, 1995, terminating respondent for misconduct in office, incompetency, and willful neglect of duty. After learning of the Board's action, and conducting a further inquiry, petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, issued an administrative complaint on November 7, 1995, alleging that respondent's conduct also constituted a sufficient ground to discipline his teacher's certificate. The charges stem from incidents which allegedly occurred while respondent taught at MRJDC from September 1993 until April 7, 1994, and at The Phoenix Center from April 8, 1994, until May 17, 1994. In his request for a hearing, respondent has denied all material allegations. During most of school year 1993-94, respondent taught at MRJDC, which is a detention facility for students who are awaiting trial on criminal charges. As might be expected, the students at MRJDC "are very difficult to work with." At hearing, respondent's supervisor established that respondent had "difficulty" with his work, he was "uncooperative" with other faculty and staff, and he had "problems" with his peers. His behavior was generally described by all witnesses as being "bizarre" and "irresponsible." On some occasions, he would become angry with his students and "storm" out of his classroom leaving the students unsupervised. While respondent was teaching at MRJDC, it was necessary for the principal of the school's education center to meet with respondent because he would not speak to any of his colleagues. Respondent took the position that speaking with his peers was not in his job description, and thus it was unnecessary for him to do so. Although admonished by the principal to communicate with his peers, respondent continued to be abrupt and uncommunicative. During his tenure at MRJDC, respondent exhibited irrational and explosive behavior while teaching his classes. For example, he frequently engaged in screaming tirades against students who failed to meet his disciplinary expectations. In addition, it was not unusual for respondent to be confrontational with his students, and if threatened by one, he would challenge the student to carry out the threat, or to meet him outside the classroom to resolve the matter. Respondent's pattern of explosive behavior at MRJDC culminated on April 7, 1994, when the MRJDC superintendent was called to respondent's classroom to resolve an "emergency" situation. As it turned out, a student had thrown some pencil lead, hitting respondent in his glasses. Respondent began yelling at the student and challenging him to come outside the classroom and "take him on" to settle the score. When the superintendent arrived, she asked respondent to leave campus for the remainder of the day. However, respondent became abrupt and confrontational with the superintendent, initially refused to leave, and continued yelling at the student for another five minutes. Because of respondent's pattern of irrational and explosive behavior throughout the school year, and his loss of effectiveness as a teacher at MRJDC with both his colleagues and his students, a decision was made to transfer respondent to The Phoenix Center, an alternative education school, in order to give him one final opportunity. Effective April 8, 1994, respondent was reassigned to The Phoenix Center as an exceptional student education teacher. His class consisted of no more than four or five students. Despite the small number of students, respondent continually called the dean of students to resolve disciplinary problems which arose in his classroom. It can be reasonably inferred that respondent lacked the necessary demeanor and temperament to effectively manage and control his classroom. On May 3, 1994, respondent was described as being "incoherent" and "in a rage" while engaged in an altercation with a student who had threatened him. While the student was being led from the classroom to the principal's office by the dean of students, respondent became "agitated" and followed the student down the hallway continuing to challenge him to carry out his threat. Although ordered by the dean to return to the classroom, respondent initially refused to do so. Respondent's explanation for his conduct was that he was trying to prove a point with the student. For at least the second time that school year, respondent was instructed by the principal not to challenge students who had made threats. By engaging in the conduct described in the previous finding of fact, and that described in findings of fact 6 and 7, respondent intentionally exposed his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On May 6, 1994, while coaching a school softball team, respondent became outraged over a call by the umpire and left the campus without permission. During his absence, the students were unsupervised. On May 17, 1994, respondent was returning to campus in his automobile when he approached a group of students in the roadway. One female student ignored her teacher's request to move and intentionally remained in the middle of the road. As he approached the student, respondent gunned his engine and drove straight for the student but hit his brakes stopping just short of her. Respondent later explained that he was merely trying to prove the point that if a student remained in the road with a car approaching, she would "be in trouble." By engaging in this conduct, respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect a student's physical safety. By virtue of his personal conduct over the school year at both MRJDC and The Phoenix Center, respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher has been seriously reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, revoking his certificate for one year, allowing him to reapply for an educator's certificate only upon certification by a mental health professional that he is competent and capable of performing his duties as an educator, and upon reemployment, placing him on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 224-B Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl J. Zahner, II, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard T. Vaughn, Jr. 1731 26th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause, within the meaning of Subsection 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007),1 to terminate Respondent’s professional services contract for the reasons alleged in a letter dated November 18, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has taught in the Polk County School System since 2000. For the first four school years, Respondent taught drama at the Rochelle School of the Arts. The next school year, Respondent taught English for one year at Kathleen Middle School. Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent taught middle school English at Gause Academy until January 13, 2009. The allegations at issue in this proceeding pertain to the 2007–2008 school year at Gause Academy. By letter dated November 18, 2008, the superintendent of the Polk County Public Schools notified Respondent that the superintendent was recommending that Petitioner terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On January 13, 2009, Petitioner followed the recommendation of the superintendent. The letter dated November 18, 2008, is the charging document in this proceeding. The letter notifies Respondent of the alleged grounds for termination of her employment and provides Respondent with a point of entry into the administrative process. In relevant part, the stated grounds for termination of employment are: . . . excessive absenteeism, dishonesty, and ongoing gross insubordination. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of excessive absenteeism during the 2007-2008 school year at Gause Academy. It is undisputed that the absences for Respondent during the 2007-2008 school year totaled 43 days, of which many were before or after a weekend and resulted in three or four consecutive days. However, it is also undisputed that absences were due to illness and the remaining 14 absences were suspensions or leave time imposed by Respondent’s employer. During the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent missed days due to illness, and Petitioner determined that Respondent was a good, dynamic teacher who related well with students and worked well in the classroom. Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence any credible and persuasive reason why 30 absences for sickness during the 2005- 2006 school year were acceptable to Petitioner, but that 29 absences for sickness during the 2007-2008 school year warranted termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The medical reasons for Respondent’s absences during the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 school years were the same. Respondent has suffered debilitating migraine headaches from a very young age. When Respondent suffers a serious migraine headache, it is difficult for her to function. However, Respondent has managed to control the effects of her migraines. A preponderance of the evidence does not explicate persuasive reasons why 30 absences during the 2005-2006 school year did not prevent Respondent from doing her job satisfactorily, but that 29 absences during the 2007-2008 school year justifies the termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The allegation of dishonesty relates to a form, identified as an Employee Application for Leave, that Respondent completed for absences from October 1 through October 3, 2008. The form provides that Respondent was sick and unable to leave her bed from October 1 through 3, 2008. Respondent signed the form on October 6, 2008, and the school principal approved the form on October 7, 2008. Sometime after October 7, 2008, the principal received information that Respondent had been arrested on October 1, 2008. The testimony of the principal during the hearing shows that he has no knowledge of the circumstances of the arrest, including the time of the arrest and the time Respondent was released and returned to her home. Nor does the principal have any knowledge of whether Respondent was ill with a migraine from October 1 through 3, 2008. Local law enforcement officers arrested Respondent at her home at 6:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, on a charge that Respondent had issued a bad check. The officers took Respondent to the courthouse, the amount was paid, and Respondent was back home by 9:00 a.m. Between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, Respondent’s mother called the school and told school officials that Respondent was ill and would not be in to work. Neither Respondent’s mother nor Respondent misrepresented Respondent’s illness. Respondent was ill with a migraine headache while she was at the courthouse and, upon her return home, was confined to bed for three days. The remaining allegation is that Respondent did not prepare adequate lesson plans. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of inadequate lesson plans. At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year, the principal performed a Quality Performance Summary Assessment for Respondent, which is the equivalent of a year-end evaluation. The principal rated Respondent as “Needing Improvement” in the areas of Planning for Learning Communication and Professionalism and rated Respondent as “Unsatisfactory” in the area of Managing the Learning Environment. The principal indicated an appropriate Professional Development Plan (PDP) would be written for the 2007-2008 school year. The PDP was presented to Petitioner at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. The primary strategies identified for improving classroom planning included: maintenance of a plan book to be turned in at the end of each week to the assistant principal and participation in in-service training for expanded classroom strategies. The PDP identified a Professional Resource Team to assist Respondent in the implementation of the PDP. The team consisted of the assistant principal, guidance counselor, and dean of students. Lesson planning at Guase Academy is left to the discretion of individual teachers. There is no template for lesson plans. Each teacher is left to develop lesson plans in a manner that is appropriate for his or her purposes. The assistant principal and guidance counselor did not provide Respondent with meaningful assistance toward the PDP goals. The assistant principal instructed all teachers that they could use documents identified in the record as “curriculum maps” as lesson plans. Respondent relied on the assistant principal and utilized curriculum maps to develop her lesson plans. Respondent worked extensively with the dean of students to formulate and complete lesson plans in a manner that was satisfactory to the principal. Respondent also worked with three fellow teachers who evaluated Respondent’s lesson plans and found them to be sufficient. None of the lesson plans were ever satisfactory to the principal. Respondent met with the principal on numerous occasions during the 2007-2008 school year. At each meeting, the principal gave only a cursory review of the plans, concluded they were inadequate, and gave no explanation of a specific deficiency. Respondent never refused to provide lesson plans and never failed to submit lesson plans until after it was apparent that no lesson plan from Respondent would satisfy the principal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order reinstating Respondent’s professional services contract with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 20th day of August, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred to Jan Mann Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Antwan Clark (Antwan), attended the sixth and seventh grades at Carol City Middle School during the academic years 1991-1992, and 1992-1993, respectively. On October 10, 1991, Antwan was suspended outdoors for three days for fighting. On October 22, 1991, Antwan was caught running in the school hallways by the assistant principal Don DeLucas. When Antwan was told to stop, he ignored the verbal request. Antwan was given a detention for his behavior. On November 5, 1991, Antwan was referred by his sixth period teacher to Assistant Principal DeLucas for being tardy to class, refusing to sign for detention, and walking out of class without a pass. Antwan was issued a reprimand/warning for his behavior and a conference was held with school administrators and his parents. After school was dismissed on March 10, 1992, the school principal Mary Henry walked toward the Carol City Elementary School while watching the students leave the middle school grounds. Antwan, across the street in a gas station parking lot, threw rocks across the street in the direction of Ms. Henry. Police Officer Christopher Burgain observed Antwan tossing the rocks. When Antwan saw the police officer, he moved to another group of students in the parking lot. Officer Burgain got Antwan and took him to Ms. Henry who told him to take Antwan back to the school. Ms. Henry called Antwan's parents. Antwan was suspended outdoors for two days for this incident. On March 16, 1992, Antwan's teacher, Ms. Viamonte, referred him to Assistant Principal DeLucas for getting out of his seat, coming to class unprepared, responding to the teacher when she asked for his daily progress report that she "was wasting his time" and threatening to tear up the daily progress report. Antwan was given a reprimand/warning and a conference was held with his parents. On April 16, 1992, Antwan cut his sixth period and was given a three- day indoor suspension. Another conference was held with his parents. On May 11, 1992, Antwan was caught gambling at a nearby senior high school. The assistant principal for the senior high school returned Antwan to Ms. Henry at the middle school. Antwan was suspended outdoors for three days. On July 22, 1992, Antwan was referred to Assistant Principal John Strachan for disciplinary action for telling a teacher that he didn't have to do what the teacher told him to do. Antwan was suspended outdoors for one day. During the 1992-1993 school year, Antwan was placed in the Student At Risk Program (SARP), which is a program designed for students who are at risk of dropping out of school. Students participating in SARP are given more attention than the students in the mainstream population. A counselor is assigned to the SARP program. On September 21, 1992, Ms. McGraw, Antwan's fifth period teacher referred Antwan to Assistant Principal Strachan for refusing to do his work, yelling at her about a pass to the office after she told him he could not have a pass, and refusing to give her a working telephone number for his parents so that she could call them. Antwan was given an indoor suspension until school administrators could meet with his parents. Antwan failed to stay in his class area during physical education class. His teacher, Janet Evans, would have to stop her class and call Antwan back into the class area. On September 24, 1992, Antwan left class without permission, and Ms. Evans found him and some other students outside the girls' locker room gambling by flipping coins. For these actions he was given a one- day indoor suspension. On October 29, 1992, Antwan was referred to Assistant Principal Strachan for excessive tardiness to school. Antwan refused direction by Mr. Strachan and was verbal and disruptive about being given a suspension. Antwan's mother was called to come and pick up him. Antwan was given a three-day outdoor suspension. On November 20, 1992, Teacher Golditch referred Antwan to the principal for shouting across the room to the extent that the teacher had to stop the class lesson and change what the class was doing. When Antwan got to the principal's office he got out of his seat, made noises, and went to the staff's counter when he was not supposed to do so. Antwan was given a one-day outdoor suspension for these actions. On January 6, 1993, Antwan and four other students were horseplaying in the cafeteria, resulting in the breaking of a window. He received a three- day indoor suspension for this behavior. On February 11, 1993, Antwan was walking around in Ms. Schrager's class and would not take his seat even though Ms. Schrager repeatedly asked him to do so. Antwan was distracting other students in the class, and Ms. Schrager had to stop the class to correct Antwan. Ms. Schrager referred the matter to Assistant Principal Strachan. A security officer was required to remove Antwan from the classroom. When asked by Mr. Strachan why he would not take his seat when asked by Ms. Schrager, Antwan responded that he wanted to sit where he wanted to sit. For this incident, Antwan received a five-day indoor suspension. Cheryl Johnson, Antwan's math teacher, had witnessed incidents in Ms. Schrager's class when Antwan would get out of his seat, walk around the classroom, and talk to other students, thereby disrupting Ms. Schrager's class. Ms. Johnson also had problems with Antwan in her classroom. Antwan would bring his drumsticks to class and tap on his desk. He was tardy to class, failed to do his homework assignments and participated very little in class. On March 8, 1993, Antwan and other students were throwing books at each other in Ms. Schrager's classroom during class. Ms. Schrager referred the incident to Mr. Strachan, who talked with Antwan. Antwan told Mr. Strachan that a student had hit him so he threw several books in retaliation. Other students were also written up for this incident by Ms. Schrager. Antwan received a five- day outdoor suspension for this episode. On March 23, 1993, Ms. Kramer, Antwan's language arts teacher, referred him to Mr. Strachan for disciplinary action for the following behavior: walking around the classroom, talking to other students, refusing to take his seat when asked to do so by his teacher, telling his teacher he didn't have to do what she was telling him to do, and rolling his eyes while continuing to move around. He received a detention. On April 21, 1993, Ms. Schrager observed Antwan showing his friend an object which resembled the outline of a gun. She asked Antwan to come talk to her. He began to walk toward her and then walked to the other side of the room. She called a security guard to come into the classroom but they were unable to find the object. Antwan was given a ten-day outdoor suspension which was reduced to a six-day suspension after school administrators talked with Antwan's parents. On May 7, 1993, Antwan was in the hallway and was fifteen minutes late for class. Mr. Strachan saw him and told Antwan to come to him. Antwan ran away from Mr. Strachan. When Mr. Strachan caught up with him, Antwan wanted to know what he had done wrong. Antwan received two detentions for the incident. On May 13, 1993, Antwan chased a female student into Ms. Arlene Shapiro's classroom. He grabbed the front of the girl's blouse trying to get a beeper which she had underneath her blouse. The girl called for help. Antwan was not Ms. Shapiro's student and was not supposed to be in her classroom. Ms. Shapiro told Antwan to let the girl go and he replied, "No. Make me." She put her hand on his back to guide him out of the classroom, and he told her not to touch him or he would hit her. She took her hand away. He punched her on her arm and then ran down the hall. Ms. Shapiro referred the matter to Assistant Principal DeLucas. Mr. DeLucas questioned Antwan about the incident and Antwan admitted hitting the teacher. Antwan received a ten-day outdoor suspension. Antwan was not doing well academically at Carol City Middle School. His report card for the school year ending June, 1993, showed final grades of four "F's" and three "D's." While at Carol City Middle School, Antwan received numerous group and individual counseling sessions with guidance counselors. Additionally, Ms. Henry, the principal, took Antwan "under her wing" and tried to counsel him. School administrators met with Antwan and his parents to discuss the problems that Antwan was having at school. However, these efforts to correct Antwan's disruptive behavior were unsuccessful. Additionally, as Antwan's disruptive behavior continued to escalate, resulting in more frequent conferences with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Clark's attitude seemed to change from conciliatory to hostile and defensive. Antwan was reassigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School during the summer of 1993. The classes are smaller than the traditional school class. There are counselors and a full-time psychologist on staff. The focus at Jan Mann is to try build self-esteem, teach conflict resolution, develop social skills, and correct past behavior problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered affirming the assignment of Antwan J. Clark to the Jan Mann Opportunity School. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5483 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 3: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The first part of the third sentence stating that Mr. Strachan personally removed Antwan from the classroom from five to ten times is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of the sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: The first three sentences and the first half of the fourth sentence are rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. The second half of the fourth sentence and the last two sentences are accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Ms. Schrager saw an object which resembled a cap gun. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The first part of the third sentence is accepted in substance. The second part of the third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The last sentence is accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 12: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument except the fact that Antwan threw rocks at Ms. Henry is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: The first three sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 17-19: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 20: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 21: The two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance except to the extent that gambling occurred on only one occasion. Paragraph 6: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 9: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Respondent's Exhibit 1 shows numerous counseling sessions between Antwan and his counselor and at least one conference between Antwan's parents and a counselor. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 12-14: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 15: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The second and third sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. I find that the parents' testimony is not credible. Paragraph 16: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 17-19: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 21: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is accepted in substance as it relates to early conferences with the parents and school officials. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne G. Telasco, Esquire First Nationwide Building 633 NE 167th Street, Suite 304 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 3211 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33134 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, #403 Miami, Florida 33312-1308 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondents demoted the Petitioner from the position of school principal to that of assistant principal in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by reason of his race.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was the principal at Rosenwald at times pertinent hereto. He had been the principal of that school since July 1, 1980. The Petitioner had had generally satisfactory performance evaluations for the school years up to and including 1987-1988. In November 1988, Respondent, Jack Simonson, was elected superintendent of the Bay County school system. Mr. Simonson, had run on a platform which included a position that he would insure that school administrators and employees at all levels were rigorously and objectively evaluated as to their performance. It is undisputed that the Petitioner was employed on an annual contract which had to be renewed each year upon renomination by the superintendent. Upon until the first year of Mr. Simonson's tenure as superintendent, the Petitioner had received overall evaluations of achievement "at the level of expectation", which are generally satisfactory evaluations overall. In those evaluations, however, the Petitioner's evaluator did find that the Petitioner needed to communicate on a more ready, relaxed or less formal basis with his personnel and needed to create an atmosphere in which others working with him would feel freer to express themselves in a constructive and orderly manner. In the 1985-86 evaluation, it was found that the Petitioner needed to improve in areas of proper care and maintenance of the school plants, as to plant materials and equipment, and to improve in the area of employee discipline. Although these evaluations were overall at a satisfactory level of performance, these problems or areas of improvement correspond to deficiencies later determined under evaluations under Mr. Simonson's administration. In the first year of Mr. Simonson's administration, which was the 1988- 89 school year, assistant superintendent, Curtis Jackson, was assigned to evaluate the Petitioner. He was unable to complete that evaluation, and Mr. Simonson ultimately declared the evaluation incomplete and unofficial on June 28, 1989. The Petitioner, however, has admitted that this inability to complete the evaluation is not evidence of racial discrimination. The Petitioner had been having problems with a particular student and felt it necessary to request a meeting with Mr. Simonson to discuss those problems. Accordingly, a meeting was held on May 2, 1989 between the Petitioner and Mr. Simonson. The Petitioner's problems with the student in question were discussed, and Mr. Simonson also discussed several areas of dissatisfaction he felt with the Petitioner's performance as principal. The meeting concluded and thereafter on June 21, 1989, the Petitioner, by memorandum, advised Mr. Simonson that his evaluation for the 1988-89 school year had not yet been completed. After declaring the Petitioner's evaluation incomplete on June 28, 1989, on August 1, 1989, Mr. Simonson drafted a memorandum describing the matters discussed at the May 2, 1989 meeting and further addressing areas of the Petitioner's performance as principal, which he viewed as substandard. Mr. Simonson met with the Petitioner on August 24, 1989 to discuss the contents of that memorandum and to discuss the areas in which Mr. Simonson felt the Petitioner's performance to be inadequate. A copy of that memorandum was placed in the Petitioner's personnel file on August 24, 1989. The Petitioner then prepared a statement of his contentions of what had occurred or been discussed at the May 2, 1989 meeting. That statement or memorandum does not appear to have been placed in his personnel file apparently because the Petitioner did not request that it be so placed. In both the August 1, 1989 memorandum and the meeting of August 24, 1989, Mr. Simonson expressed dissatisfaction with a number of performance areas concerning the Petitioner's performance as principal at Rosenwald. He perceived an apparent lack of direction and supervision of staff and students; was concerned about alleged incidents involving sexual acts and acts of violence among students which resulted in the transfer of several students away from Rosenwald. He felt this indicated student unrest and lack of maintenance of disciplinary standards and which ultimately required the placement of a deputy sheriff at the school. He was concerned about complaints he had received concerning a "black heritage program". He admonished the Petitioner that no sort of racism, black or white, would be tolerated in the school system and that racist comments or inappropriate programs should not occur at the school site. Mr. Simonson apparently felt that the Petitioner had made an inappropriate response to the May 2, 1989 meeting consisting of criticizing other school personnel rather than focusing on constructive improvement ideas for the areas Mr. Simonson felt needed improvement in the Petitioner's performance. Mr. Simonson also expressed concern with the Petitioner's handling of school personnel matters and employee evaluations and his skill in staff selection. Mr. Simonson was also concerned with a perceived lack of support for school and district personnel, possible insubordination on the part of the Petitioner and his poor communication skills or efforts with staff and students. Mr. Simonson then advised the Petitioner, by memorandum, that the following areas needed improvement: (1) student discipline, (2) recording keeping on discipline referrals of students, (3) administration of teacher evaluations in terms of the evaluations needing to be more rigorous and thorough, (4) school assembly programs should emphasize Americanism and not embarrass any child because of his or her race, (5) statements made to members of the public should be factually accurate, (6) Petitioner's acceptance of responsibility, (7) support for assistant principals, (8) need for improvement in cleanliness and appearance of the school, and (9) use of school facilities to conduct personal business. Mr. Simonson then advised the Petitioner that the means or methods to correct these perceived deficiencies should be in place by the end of the first semester of the 1989-90 school year, at which time another conference would be scheduled to review the areas of concern. This memorandum was designed to give further notice to the Petitioner that Mr. Simonson perceived there were problems in his performance at Rosenwald and that the Petitioner was expected to make improvement in the areas of perceived poor performance. The memorandum was not and was not represented to be an annual evaluation for the year 1988-89 and states that the Petitioner did not receive an evaluation for that year. The Petitioner, in turn, prepared a memorandum in response to that August 1, 1989 memorandum and had that memorandum placed in his personnel file. The school district administration, including Mr. Simonson, received complaints from various sources in the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years concerning disciplinary problems, safety problems, and problems involving poor academic progress of students at Rosenwald. Incidents occurred and others were alleged from reports of parents, students, or school employees concerning student violence and possible sexual assaults at Rosenwald. The concern over student safety ultimately culminated in the necessity of placement of a deputy sheriff as a school resource officer at the school. Through repetitive complaints of parents and others having contact with the school and its operations, Rosenwald had acquired a poor reputation for its academic quality and the safety of its students in terms of disciplinary problems and resulting dangers to student safety. Aside from the Petitioner's denial that Rosenwald had such a reputation, the evidence concerning it was unrebutted. The evidence establishes that there were a number of areas where the Petitioner's performance was unsatisfactory. In such areas as mentioned above concerning discipline and student safety, as well as the scope of their duties, the Petitioner had communication and personal relationship problems with both his assistant principals in the 1988-89 school year. Those assistant principals had been assigned to Rosenwald with the Petitioner for several years. Until the 1988-89 school year, they had had a cordial working relationship, as well as a friendly, warm social relationship even to the extent of socializing with the Petitioner away from the school environment. They became disappointed with the Petitioner's performance as their leader and principal during the 1988-89 school year in such areas as his handling of student discipline, particularly his alteration of their disciplinary measures, as well as disagreements with the Petitioner concerning the scope of their duties, in terms of additional duties he delegated them. These problems culminated in these assistant principals being reassigned by Mr. Simonson so that the Petitioner had a new set of assistant principals for the 1989-90 school year, Ms. Love and Ms. Stryker. However, the problems of poor communication and poor interpersonal relationships, particularly with Ms. Love, continued in that second school year. There was also poor communication and interaction between the Petitioner and other district and school personnel. The Petitioner on a number of occasions did not appropriately handle severe disciplinary problems. He allowed the parents of a student, who had committed a severe disciplinary violation, to berate the assistant principal who had sought to impose discipline on the student. He should not have allowed a confrontation between the assistant principal and the student's parents to occur. There was a severe disciplinary incident where a number of male students had stripped the clothes from a female student in the gymnasium while several teachers stood by and allowed the incident to happen. Even though the incident happened rather quickly, the teachers did not act quickly and decisively enough to prevent the incident from happening or happening in the severe manner in which it did. Mr. Simonson learned of the incident and wrote a letter to the Petitioner indicating his assumption that the Petitioner would certainly reprimand the teachers. After a substantial number of days elapsed and no reprimands were issued to the teachers, Mr. Simonson, in effect, ordered that they be reprimanded. He felt that the Petitioner displayed indecisive and weak leadership in handling this disciplinary situation, as well as others set forth in the evidence of record. On another occasion, a teacher brought several male students to the Petitioner's class for discipline because of disruptive, disrespectful conduct, including their reference to the Petitioner as "Uncle Eli" in the vein that he was thusly related to one of the miscreant students. It was their belief that "Uncle Eli" was their ally. The Petitioner heard the teacher's explanation of the problem and seemed to handle it in a lighthearted or casual fashion and dismissed the teacher from the presence of himself and the students and had an undisclosed discussion with the students out of the teacher's hearing. The result was that very little was done to discipline the students and the problem continued. The student related to the Petitioner continued to refer to him as "Uncle Eli" and appeared to rely on his relationship with the Petitioner to fail to follow proper rules of deportment. The Petitioner displayed poor leadership abilities. He has typically blamed his disciplinary problems and other problems, such as poor communication skills at Rosenwald, on other teachers or non-instructional personnel and even blamed the disciplinary problems on the high number of minority students and students of a low socioeconomic class, which he characterized as the minority or black students. This was a pattern observed by Mr. Simonson and the assistant principals assigned in both years to the Petitioner, by which the Petitioner, instead of attempting to resolve the problem in a decisive way himself, would shift the blame for problems which were his responsibility to others. He was repeatedly unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for his own mistakes or for decisions that he was required, in his position as principal, to make without delegating them to others. He had a habit of delegating duties or responsibilities of his office to others without following up to see that the delegated duties were carried out. Then when the desired results were not achieved by the person to whom they were delegated, he would fail to accept responsibility for the failed task and instead would blame the failure on the person to whom the task had been delegated without accepting any responsibility himself. He displayed a substantial degree of disorganization in his administrative duties and responsibilities. He did the required teacher evaluations belatedly and hurriedly so that they were fraught with numerous mistakes. In the course of attempting to do the teacher evaluations, he asked his assistant principals to make negative comments about certain teachers which made them uncomfortable because this was not appropriately their duty. Rather, the evaluations of the teachers was the sole responsibility of the principal. The Petitioner asked a parent to sign an affidavit in his support which was later listed as a potential exhibit in this proceeding during a meeting with the parent where the parent's stepchild's discipline was discussed and on that occasion, reduced. In the instance where the female student's clothes were torn off by a group of boys in the gymnasium, the Petitioner was slow to investigate and to make a decision concerning whether or not the teachers involved were negligent and whether or not they should be reprimanded. This necessitated Mr. Simonson's intervention in the question of discipline of the teachers who allowed the situation to occur. The condition of the school plant and grounds was another matter of concern of the county administration and Mr. Simonson. The plant condition had been allowed to deteriorate over time during the Petitioner's tenure as principal. His attention was called to it by Mr. Simonson and the county administration, and his reaction was that he had sent in work orders and the maintenance department had repeatedly refused to act upon them in a timely way. He also maintained that Rosenwald was getting reduced funds with which to make capital improvements or repairs, compared to other middle schools which he seemed to allude was for racially discriminatory reasons. In fact, it was established that the maintenance personnel of the county system had not delayed or refused to act upon maintenance request orders submitted by Rosenwald or the Petitioner, and it was established that Rosenwald had suffered no deficit in terms of capital outlay funds as compared to other schools. In fact, it had received more than some schools. When funds were not forthcoming for the projects which the Petitioner wanted accomplished, it was because of the great expense of constructing a new school and because of the preexisting maintenance, repair and capital outlay schedule arrived at and imposed by the prior superintendent's administration. Mr. Simonson was not able to alter this in a short period of time. Funds were scarce and had to be parceled out and scheduled for each school, taking into account that scarcity. The evidence shows in an unrefuted way, however, that Rosenwald received as much as any other school for the same items of maintenance or capital outlay and, in fact, received more than some schools. The Petitioner's testimony was impeached in these particulars. In short, it was demonstrated that the Petitioner exhibited poor leadership skills and abilities in a substantial number of the areas that, indeed, Mr. Simonson had complained to him about, verbally and in the above- mentioned memoranda. In these memoranda, and particularly the August 1, 1989 memorandum, Mr. Simonson gave specific directions to the Petitioner regarding improvement of his performance and regarding the expectations the superintendent had regarding the Petitioner's administration of the Rosenwald school for the upcoming 1989-90 school year. Thus, the Petitioner was clearly on notice that he was expected to improve his performance with regard to the areas Mr. Simonson had discussed and forewarned him about as early as the spring of 1989, if he wished to remain as principal of Rosenwald. There is no question that Mr. Simonson attributed the various discipline, leadership, organizational and management problems existing at Rosenwald to the Petitioner's poor performance as a principal. Although some improvement was noted by assistant superintendent Hamby when she evaluated the Petitioner during the 1989-90 school year, in large part, the Petitioner, instead of conscientiously seeking to effect improvements in his administration, embarked on an effort to challenge Mr. Simonson, in the electronic media and otherwise, regarding his views about the Petitioner's performance, even to the extent of publicly challenging various steps Mr. Simonson took to improve the situation at Rosenwald including his appointment of Ms. Love as assistant principal. He otherwise sought to transfer blame for shortcomings existing in the administration and management of Rosenwald to others, and to make excuses, including the attempt to publicly allege that his problems were the result of racial animus. He rallied the assistance of some of the faculty and black community to assist him in his effort to challenge Mr. Simonson. One of Mr. Simonson's major campaign positions in seeking election as superintendent was to more rigorously evaluate school personnel. He carried this intent out after his election by regularly reminding administrators of his desire that they conduct accurate evaluations of the employees they supervised. During his term as superintendent, he strictly pursued the evaluation of district administrators. This policy resulted in the non-renewal of the contracts of four administrators, who were white. They were either returned to the classroom or left the school system. During his term, he reduced one black administrator from principal to assistant principal, the Petitioner. No black administrators were either returned to the classroom or terminated. Mr. Simonson repeatedly reminded the assistant superintendents and other administrators under him, responsible for evaluating the employees they supervised with the necessity for accurate, objective, and fair evaluations. Accordingly, with a view toward evaluating the Petitioner for the 1989-90 school year, Mr. Simonson sought an evaluator who could objectively, fairly and accurately evaluate the Petitioner. Assistant superintendent, Glenda Hamby, had been hired as an assistant superintendent in June of 1989. She had not been in the Bay County school district administration or employ during the previous 1988-89 school year, having been a school superintendent herself in another county at that time. Mr. Simonson believed, because she had not been a part of the school system or administration, that she could have an objective, fresh approach in the evaluation process for the Petitioner with no preconceived notions concerning his capabilities or past or current performance. Therefore, Ms. Hamby commenced the evaluation process for the Petitioner for the 1989-90 school year. She evaluated him in accordance with appropriate, applicable procedures, and he was evaluated in the same manner as were all other principals. In accordance with Mr. Simonson's instructions to her, she actively lent assistance to the Petitioner to aid him in improving his performance in certain areas, such as pupil discipline. Ms. Hamby visited Rosenwald and the Petitioner numerous times during the 1989-90 school year. She observed him at monthly principal meetings, middle school curriculum meetings, and sometimes at special curriculum meetings. She tried to help him by suggesting that he be more visible on campus, visit classrooms more frequently, in order to project the image that learning is important, as well as to help him in making teacher evaluations. She, at all times, "bent over backwards...to be very fair". Ms. Hamby found that the Petitioner needed to make improvements in the area of leadership skills through better communication with students, faculty and other staff members, as well as administrators. She explained that an effective leader communicates well with students, parents, and staff. She rated the Petitioner "below expectation" in communicating skills because of a need to improve on internal communications with his staff, the need to give clear directions, make sure that his expectations were clearly understood, and the need to give clear, concise and properly-structured written communications. Ms. Hamby gave the Petitioner an overall evaluation of "below expectation" for the 1989-90 school year. He was given "below expectation" ratings in the areas of leadership, decisiveness, managing interaction, and communication skills. In the area of "persuasiveness", he was rated between "at expectation" and "below expectation". She tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in this area and used her discretion to not rate him at "below expectation", even though that was the category next lower than "at expectation", because she was trying to assist the Petitioner and be fair to him. Some specific examples of the communication problems exhibited by the Petitioner in his performance as principal included miscommunication concerning the location and number of students to be in attendance at the "Freedom Shrine" dedication ceremony, a faculty meeting misunderstanding between the Petitioner and assistant principal, Ms. Love, exhibited in front of the other staff members, and a misunderstanding concerning funding for an ESOL program which resulted in the Petitioner erroneously firing an aide at Rosenwald because of his belief that funds for the program were exhausted. His misunderstanding concerning the aide's salary, funding situation, and his failure to accurately investigate the situation before acting is a clear example of poor communication skills, efforts and leadership. Poor communication skills by the Petitioner are also evidenced by a summary he prepared of the May 2, 1989 meeting with Mr. Simonson. This summary, which was attached to Petitioner's FCHR complaint, contained numerous grammatical errors. The Petitioner acknowledged that the summary contained grammatical errors and admitted that improper grammar in a written communication diminishes the effectiveness of that communication. Additionally, while he attempted to blame the numerous errors in Respondent's exhibit 1 on "typos" (although it was attached to his FCHR complaint) a handwritten memorandum from the Petitioner also contains fundamental grammatical errors. See Petitioner's exhibit 68D in evidence. Ms. Hamby rated the Petitioner "below expectation" in the area of decisiveness, because she had observed the Petitioner "a number of times" not being as decisive as he should have been. She particularly noted that he had the habit of delegating tasks to other staff members without accepting any further responsibility for those tasks. He would typically not follow up on a task he delegated, but later, if he disagreed with the way the task was handled, he would disclaim responsibility on the basis of the delegation and blame mistakes on the staff person carrying out the delegated task involved, even though his was the ultimate responsibility as principal to see that the task was accurately carried out. In regard to the Petitioner's "below expectation" rating in managing interaction, Ms. Hamby recommended that he participate in a review seminar or in-service program on problem-solving techniques. Some of the reasons for the "below expectation" rating in managing interaction were the considerable difficulties he had in his relationships with two different sets of assistant principals and complaints from parents concerning discipline problems or miscommunications. Although Ms. Hamby explained her rating as to persuasiveness "at expectation" but above the "below expectation" rating as an attempt to be fair, she stated that she did see some improvement in this area in terms of persuasion and motivation of staff and students and focusing on learning, although not sufficient improvement. Her rating of the Petitioner at "below expectation" in the area of organizational ability and delegation of authority was also based upon poor communication with his staff and failure to follow up and accept responsibility for delegated tasks. Ms. Hamby explained her overall evaluation of "below expectation" in terms of the Petitioner being an administrator of substantial years of experience but who was still demonstrating many of the behaviors seen most frequently in a first-year administrator which should be corrected after the first year. In a veteran administrator, Ms. Hamby felt one should not observe those same inadequate performances. Therefore, she ranked him at "below expectation". When Ms. Hamby finished this evaluation, she wrote a memorandum to Mr. Simonson recommending that the Petitioner be re-assigned because she felt that he was simply not competent to be a principal at Rosenwald, especially given the fact that he had been a principal for a number of years and had not improved to an adequate degree. Thus, based upon her observations and consideration over the course of a substantial part of the school year, she made this recommendation to Mr. Simonson, and he approved it. In many or most of the areas concerning the Petitioner's performance, the testimony of Ms. Hamby and Mr. Simonson is in direct opposition to that of the Petitioner. In this regard, it is determined that the Petitioner was the least credible witness of the three. He was impeached a number of times upon cross-examination. He testified, for instance, in a deposition, that three maintenance directors under three different superintendents' administrations had refused to timely perform work orders requested of them for work to be done at Rosenwald. At hearing, however, the Petitioner testified that, instead, he did not feel this was the case. He answered evasively concerning whether he had really meant capital improvement projects, instead of mere maintenance work orders (capital improvement projects are not necessarily the sole decision- making responsibility of maintenance directors), and testified, in effect, that he did not feel that that was the case until he was confronted by his earlier testimony, which he attempted to rationalize. Additionally, he testified at hearing that he had never attributed disciplinary problems at Rosenwald to the large number of blacks at the school, while in his written summary of the May 2, 1989 meeting with Mr. Simonson, he repeatedly does so and blames the disciplinary problems at Rosenwald on the large number of blacks with their attendant socioeconomic disadvantages and cultural differences. In this document and in his testimony at hearing, he affirmatively expressed the desire that the proportion of blacks in the "mix" of the student population at Rosenwald be reduced in order to improve the disciplinary problems. Another instance of the Petitioner's testimony being impeached occurred when, in the course of his testimony, the Petitioner disputed the testimony of David Ruttenberg. The Petitioner emphatically testified that Mr. Ruttenberg had signed a letter of reprimand issued to him by the Petitioner. The letter was then produced and introduced into evidence and clearly was unsigned by Mr. Ruttenberg. Further, in carefully considering the testimony of Mr. Simonson, Ms. Hamby, and the Petitioner, and in observing their various personal demeanors on the witness stand, it is obvious to the Hearing Officer that the Petitioner in delivering his testimony was repetitively evasive and argumentative. He repeatedly sought to avoid directly answering questions, particularly those posed upon cross-examination. His evasiveness and argumentativeness effectively rendered his testimony pervasively self-serving. Contrastingly, the testimony of Mr. Simonson and Ms. Hamby was not effectively impeached. Their testimony regarding the deficiencies in the Petitioner's performance, when considered with that of the Petitioner, is more credible and worthy of belief. The Petitioner claimed repeatedly, but never established, that Mr. Simonson and Ms. Hamby, the various assistant principals and other administrators who had served under the Petitioner and Mr. Simonson were part of an illegal conspiracy to demote the Petitioner on account of his race. He never established that those persons had any communication between themselves concerning a scheme or concerted plan of action to get rid of the Petitioner for any reason, much less that of his race. Mr. Simonson may have expressed the intention to the Petitioner that he intended to remove him from his position if improvements were not made in the following school year, but there is no evidence whatever that Mr. Simonson and the other persons whom the Petitioner accuses of engaging in an illegal conspiracy ever communicated any illicit desire to demote or "get rid of" the Petitioner among themselves. In summary, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner did not possess the qualities of leadership, communication skills, and disciplinary effectiveness, and other skills to a sufficient degree in order to be an effective principal at a middle school such as Rosenwald. The evidence establishes that he was unable to adequately perform those duties and functions as principal. It is important to note, and it is found, that although the evidence establishes that the Petitioner did not possess these skills to a sufficient degree to justify his retention as principal at Rosenwald, it is also established that Mr. Simonson had a good faith belief that the Petitioner's performance as principal in these particulars was so deficient and acted on that belief, rather than for reasons of discrimination against the Petitioner because of his race. Upon receipt of Ms. Hamby's evaluation of the Petitioner, with the accompanying memorandum, Mr. Simonson recommended to the Respondent, Bay County School Board (Board), that the Petitioner be removed from the position of principal of Rosenwald. He did not, however, recommend his termination but rather that he be reassigned to another position. In due course, the Board voted 4 to 1 to adopt Mr. Simonson's recommendation that the Petitioner's principal contract not be renewed. Before taking the vote, the Board was advised that they could reject Mr. Simonson's recommendation that the Petitioner not be renominated should they believe it to be for discriminatory reasons and in violation of relevant federal law. The Board voted 4 to 1 to adopt Mr. Simonson's recommendation. In discussing this course of action and recommendation with the Petitioner, Mr. Simonson told the Petitioner that there was a need for and that he had a desire to create a position in the county administrative office for which he felt the Petitioner would be well-suited, which was a position that would promote the recruitment of minority teachers. It would involve a lateral transfer at the same salary level. The Petitioner said that the offer "sounded good" and that he would like to discuss it with his wife and advise Mr. Simonson at a later time whether he wished to accept the position. Mr. Simonson agreed, but the Petitioner later advised Mr. Simonson that he did not want to accept that position and thereafter, the Petitioner embarked on the campaign culminating in the filing of the petition with the Human Relations Commission accusing Mr. Simonson and the Board of racial discrimination. Thus, the evidence reveals that, initially, Mr. Simonson did not intend to demote the Petitioner, but rather, sought to reassign him to a different position in the county administration at the same salary level. Ultimately, thereafter, the Petitioner was assigned to an available position as assistant principal at MowatMiddle School. The assistant principal's position in the school district's pay scale of necessity carried a lower salary level associated with it so that the Petitioner's salary was, therefore, reduced by his assignment to that position instead of the one offered by Mr. Simonson. Mr. Simonson stated, when asked his reasons "in a nutshell" for reassigning the Petitioner, were that he had not seen the degree of improvement in the situation at Rosenwald that he would have liked to have seen exhibited during the past school year. Mr. Simonson testified that he felt Rosenwald needed a "change in direction" and it is obvious that Mr. Simonson meant that he was dissatisfied with the performance of the Petitioner as principal of Rosenwald and that, as described in his testimony, the degree of improvement he had indicated to the Petitioner was required before the 1989-90 school year commenced had not been realized at the end of that school year and the Petitioner was re-assigned. It is obvious that Mr. Simonson believed and testified, in effect, that a change in principals could bring a change in direction toward improvement of the conditions at Rosenwald, which he described in his testimony needed improvement, and which he had described as needing improvement to the Petitioner. Mr. Simonson was the decision-maker who recommended to the Board that the Petitioner be removed as principal for reasons of inadequate performance and the Board adopted that recommendation and reasons by its 4 to 1 majority vote. The evidence in the record clearly demonstrates in the form of Mr. Simonson's direct testimony that the above-mentioned reason articulated for the removal of the Petitioner as principal and his reassignment was for reasons of inadequate performance, in the context of the reasons clearly articulated in Mr. Simonson's direct testimony as the decision-maker who made the decision and recommended it to the Board. Mr. Simonson has clearly and adequately articulated nondiscriminatory reasons for the action he took and recommended to the Board and which the Board adopted. During Mr. Simonson's four years as superintendent of Bay County schools, no other black employees instituted charges against him involving racial discrimination. During his tenure as superintendent, which was only one term, Mr. Simonson hired six black administrators. This was three times more black administrators hired than had been the case with the previous administration. When the Petitioner was removed as principal, Mr. Simonson recommended, and the Board approved, the non-renewal of the contracts of four other administrators, all of whom were white. Two of those white administrators were reassigned as classroom teachers, rather than being afforded the opportunity afforded the Petitioner to remain in an administrative capacity, albeit at reduced salary. At least one of those four white administrators who were demoted left the school district either by discharge or voluntarily in order to avoid the effect of demotion. Upon the Petitioner's removal as principal, Mr. Simonson recommended, and the Board approved, his assignment of Ms. Carol Love, an assistant principal at Rosenwald, to be principal. Ms. Love is a white female. The evidence establishes that Ms. Love did provide a change in direction toward improvement of the conditions perceived as problems by the Petitioner. Students' test scores improved, discipline improved, and communication with the district personnel and amongst the school staff improved. Progress was made in terms of awards earned by the school and its students, as for instance in the local science fair competition. Under Ms. Love's administration at the school, parental and community involvement improved; and improvement was shown in instructional operations. Planning and involvement of the staff in planning and carrying out plans were shown to be improved, as were staff evaluations. Gradually, as a result of these measures, the community image of Rosenwald as an effective school improved. More efforts were made to seek new and different learning opportunities for students and educational enhancements for the school. The evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Simonson and the Board's intent and reasons for re-assigning the Petitioner was not to discriminate against him because of his race or for any other discriminatory reason, but rather to seek improvements in the educational and disciplinary environment at Rosenwald. The remarks made by Mr. Simonson during a Lions Club meeting speech concerning which there was testimony and argument in this proceeding or those made regarding the celebration of "black history month" at Rosenwald did not establish that his reasons for demoting the Petitioner were pretextual. The remarks did not express any contempt, hostility, or a discriminatory animus toward blacks as a race or toward any blacks, including the Petitioner, in particular. In fact, Mr. Simonson expressly stated that he cared for his students, both black and white, and that he desired that the Bay County school system would begin to observe Martin Luther King Day as an official holiday. He stated that while he did not have any particular strong feeling about Dr. Martin Luther King and stated, in effect, that his attitude was essentially neutral concerning the subject of Dr. King and the holiday (much like he felt about Columbus Day) that he understood that it meant a great deal to black people and black students, or words to that effect. He also stated that he would not tolerate racism of any kind in his administration and the school system, or words to that effect. These statements, and the statements he was reputed by the Petitioner to have made, concerning the manner in which the "black history month assembly" was conducted and concerning the purported singing of the song "we shall overcome" at that assembly also did not exhibit any racial animus toward the Petitioner or any other black person, individually, or as a race. The gravamen and tenor of the remarks made by Mr. Simonson were clearly to the effect that he would not tolerate racism of any kind perpetrated by any person and expressed a particular concern that no student should be made to feel embarrassed on account of his race. Such remarks and statements do not show that the employment action taken, and the reason given, was a pretext for discrimination nor do they constitute direct evidence of racial discrimination because of the substance of the statements themselves, and the context in which they were made clearly shows that Mr. Simonson did not intend to express nor to mean by the statements any verbal act of hostility or discriminatory attitude, motive, or animus directed toward any individual because of his or her race, or to any group, because of the racial makeup of that group. There was no evidence establishing an immediate past history of discrimination in the Bay County school system. Bay County had not just recently converted from a racially-dual system. The desegregation order in the Youngblood case was entered in 1970. The consent order concerning which testimony and argument has been elicited was entered in 1988. The consent order, however, cannot constitute evidence of an immediate past history of discrimination because there was no admission or proof, in the proceeding culminating in that consent order, that the Board and school district had engaged in racial discrimination. Rather, the consent order is merely a contract between the Board and school district and the potential litigants who entered into the agreement culminating in the consent order. That agreement was entered in hopes of avoiding litigation and in order to satisfy the concerns of one segment of the community concerning the issue of closing of some "sixth grade centers". The Board did not admit in the discussions culminating in the consent order, nor in the consent order, that any discrimination had or was taking place. Consequently, there has been no evidence in this case which can show an immediate past history of discrimination with regard to the Bay County school district. Neither has there been any evidence which establishes that Rosenwald had been discriminated against in terms of capital outlay funding or in the completion of work orders for maintenance or other work. Concerning capital outlay, more money per student was spent at Rosenwald than at the other three middle schools. Additionally, nine out of every ten work orders submitted by Rosenwald were performed by the district. Mr. John Bruce, chairperson of the executive council of Acure (Advisory Committee for Urban Revitalization Equity), a plaintiff in the Youngblood case and a community supporter of the Petitioner during his tenure as principal at Rosenwald and during his efforts to regain that position, admitted that he did not contend nor believe that the Respondents had not fulfilled their obligations to eliminate discrimination in the area of facilities for a period of three years or longer. In summary, the greater weight of the probative and relevant material testimony and evidence establishes that the Respondents, including Mr. Simonson, never took any discriminatory action against the Petitioner on account of his race. Mr. Simonson, as the decision-maker in the employment decision regarding the Petitioner, clearly articulated in his testimony a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action taken in removing the Petitioner as principal of Rosenwald, offering him another position suited to his talents and of equal salary, and ultimately, because he refused that position, appointing him as an assistant principal at reduced salary. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's performance as principal at Rosenwald during the two school years in question was deficient and inadequate in such a way as to render him not qualified to hold or retain that position. The Petitioner has simply failed to prove his case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order by entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding that the Respondents have not violated Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, with regard to the employment action taken against the Petitioner, Eli Campbell. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1993.
