Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a long-time Florida resident, having moved to the state when she was five, and thereafter was reared and educated in Dade County, Florida. Petitioner received an AA degree from Dade County Junior College, a BA from Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton Florida, and a Masters Degree from Lone Mountain College in San Francisco, California via an external program based in the Miami/Dade area. In pursuit of a Ph.D. in psychology, Petitioner applied to Union, was accepted and matriculated there from 1981 through 1983, and received her Ph.D. in psychology on June 29, 1983. Upon receipt of her Ph.D. degree in psychology, Petitioner was required to fulfill a one-year post-doctoral supervision prior to applying for certification to take the psychology licensure examination. Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983). Petitioner satisfied this requirement from June 30, 1983 to June 30, 1984 by engaging in psychotherapy under the supervision of Dr. Ted Aidman. Petitioner then applied to the Board for certification to take the psychologist licensure examination. Petitioner applied to take the examination under the provisions of Section 490.005(1); Florida Statutes (1983) and in pertinent part is quoted below: Any person desiring to be licensed as a psychologist shall apply to the department to take the licensure examination. The department shall license each applicant who the board certifies has: * * * (b) Submitted proof satisfactory to the Board that he has received a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or that he has received a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to the standards of training of those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association or the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities. (Emphasis supplied) The Board adopted Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Coded to implement Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983) and essentially codified the criteria for American Psychological Association (APA) approved programs for the first time in this rule. The rule took effect on April 5, 1984. The pertinent part of the rule is quoted below: In order to be certified by the Board as eligible for examination pursuant to Section 490.005(1), Florida Statutes, an applicant must: * * * (b) Submit proof of the completion of a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association the Board will apply the following criteria: (emphasis supplied) 1. Education and training in psychology must have been received in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Counsel on PostSecondary Accreditation. * * * 5. The doctoral program must be an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program. The American Psychological Association Accreditation Handbook, Criteria For Accreditation of Doctoral Training Program and Internship in Professional Psychology (Handbook), adopted in January 1979 and amended in January 1980, sets out criteria that the doctoral programs must meet to be eligible for accreditation by APA and in pertinent part are listed below: A. Training in professional psychology is doctoral training offered in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Council of Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). * * * The faculty of the program must have clear authority and primary responsibility for all aspects of the program (even if the program cuts across institutional administrative lines). The program must include an integrated, organized plan of study and must ensure a breadth of exposure to the field of psychology. In the Introduction of A Handbook of Accreditation (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, page 1) accreditation is defined as both a process and a result and in pertinent part is quoted below: As a process, it is a form of peer review in which educational institutions establish a set of criteria and procedures by which they and their fellows are judged. As a results it is a form of certification by which the quality of an educational institution; as defined by the accrediting body's criteria; is affirmed. The forms of Affiliations are discussed in A Handbook of Accreditation and in pertinent part quoted below: Postsecondary educational institutions may be affiliated with the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, and through it with the Association, in either two ways. One is membership, which is synonymous with accreditation; the other is candidacy, a preaccreditation status. [page 3] . . . an institution continues its candidacy for accreditation for a fixed period of time - usually no longer than six years - until it either fulfills the Criteria for Accreditation or has its affiliation with the Commission terminated. [page 3] . . . Candidacy indicates that an institution meets the Criteria for Candidacy for Accreditation and is progressing toward accreditation; it does not, however, automatically assure eventual accreditation . . . [page 3, 4] The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools' evaluative criteria for candidacy highlight that such standards differ from accreditation standards. A Handbook of Accreditation explains the second evaluation criteria as follows: This criteria differs from the second evaluative criterion for accreditation in that it speaks of a candidate's accomplishing its immediate purposes. The difference is meant to acknowledge that a candidate is not yet fully developed to the point at which it has the ability to accomplish all of its purposes. [page 19] The fourth criteria for candidacy status indicates that candidacy status is not equivalent to accreditation. The fourth evaluative criteria reads in pertinent part: 4. The institution has the potential to achieve accreditation within the candidacy period. In making this judgment, the candidate's present condition, its plans and its timetable for developing to the point where it meets the Criteria for Accreditation must be examined. Candidacy is of a limited durations and the Commission seeks to determine through this criterion that the candidates current plans are likely to allow it to achieve accreditation within this limited period. [page 20] Union received formal accreditation on February 25, 1985 by the North Central Association for Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institution of Higher Education ("Commission"), a regional accrediting body recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. During Petitioner's matriculation at Union, and at the time she graduated, Union was in a candidacy status or a preaccreditation status but was not accredited. Union was in candidacy status from 1979 to 1985, a period of six (6) years which is considered the maximum period without special Commission action for extension. Union had to satisfy all thirteen (13) general institutional requirements and all four (4) evaluative criteria to be granted candidacy status. To achieve accreditation, Union had to sustain and maintain the same thirteen (13) institutional requirements and satisfy a similar, but different, group of four (4) evaluative criteria. The same general institutional requirements and basically the same evaluative criteria are required for both candidacy status and accreditation but candidacy and accreditation are not the same. In candidacy status the institution is trying to assure the Commission of its ability, financial and otherwise, to maintain a viable program. In accreditation the certification has been affirmed. No evidence was presented to show that APA, in its approval process, would substitute candidacy status for accreditation status. In fact, the evidence was conclusive that regional accreditation was an important standard and a reasonable criterion in the evaluation and approval of psychology programs by the APA. The evidence is clear that the accreditation requirement of the rule in question is comparable to the requirement of regional accreditation by APA in its approval process. To demonstrate that a program is able to produce qualified health professionals the APA requires that a program must articulate what the program is and what that program requires. A pertinent section in the Handbook under Training Models and Curricula, page 5, is quoted below: C. The foundation of professional practice in psychology is the evolving body of knowledge in the discipline of psychology. While programs will vary in emphasis and in available resources, sound graduate education in general psychology is therefore essential in any program. The curriculum shall encompass the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full-time resident graduate study. Instruction in scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurement, and history and systems of psychology must be included in every doctoral program in professional psychology. . . (emphasis supplied) The requirement of a sequenced course of study is an important and essential criteria of the APA in the training of a psychologist. The evidence is clear that the requirements of Rule 21U-11.06(1)(b)5., Florida Administrative Code, are comparable to the standards for APA approval of a doctoral program with regard to the design of study by the faculty even though the language "sequence of study" does not appear in the APA standards. Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code and the standards for approval of programs by the APA contemplated that a program designed to produce qualified health care professionals must articulate a plan of study for those future health care professionals that would achieve the objectives of training that are specified by the program. A plan, designed by the faculty responsible for the program, by which you get from here to there, which involves the faculty providing the student with a sequence of experience such as that one builds on the other in an orderly way; an organized integrated sequence of study. Petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that Union's doctoral psychology program was an organized integrated sequence of study. Union has a committee on Psychology that is chaired by Dr. Harold Gollishan and an identifiable psychology faculty with members located in different areas of the United States. Union offers a single graduate degree -- the Doctor of Philosophy Degree. Union offers a self-directed program of studies for its students. There are no prescribed courses, although an individualized plan (Learning Agreement) may include the use of university courses (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, Pages 4 and 18). The process for obtaining a doctoral degree at Union is described in the Union Graduate School Learner Handbook (Learner Handbook) which applies to all doctoral degrees, not just psychology. The Learner Handbook does not state additional or specific requirements or what Union refers to as core requirement, for the Union doctoral psychology programs. The core requirement is not specifically addressed in USG Program Summary (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6) which Petitioner presented as a prototype for a psychology program but was no more than a summation and documentation of one student's learning process at Union. Neither the Learner Handbook nor the Program Summary articulate an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty of Union. Once admitted to Union's doctoral program the general process is for the student to: (a) attend a 10-day entrance colloquium; (b) form a doctoral committee; (c) develop a learning agreement; (d) fulfill the terms of the learning agreement through independent learning; (e) complete a Program Demonstrating Excellence (PDE); and (f) prepare a program summary. Although the testimony of Drs. Crawford and Benjamin was that the core requirements for the doctoral psychology program were articulated at this colloquium, the weight of the evidence shows that there are no specific core requirements for the Union doctoral psychology program as such but that the core requirements are determined at the colloquium after the students present their program to other students and faculty. This process does not constitute an organized integrated sequence of study designed by the faculty responsible for the program. The testimony at the hearing does not establish that the Union psychology program is memorialized in written documents. There is no formal written design of the Union psychology program. If there are any written documents of Union psychology program, they were not produced at the hearing. The Union psychology program's integrated sequence of study was never described at the hearing. The Union psychology program was variously described as a set of precedents, as a set of expectations, and as an "understanding of the faculty." The vague "expectations" or "understandings", absent a formal written program, are insufficient to constitute an organized integrated sequence of study. A psychology program based on "expectations" and "understandings" is particularly insufficient at a school, such as Union, where the faculty and students are spread out across the country, and meet together sporadically. The testimony of Dr. Aidman, an adjunct professor and Petitioner's doctoral committee chairman, highlights how little interaction there is between faculty. The testimony of Dr. Benjamin further reflects that much of the faculty does not know who, when, where or how the psychology program was designed. In the absence of a formal written psychology program, and in the absence of a cohesive, centrally located faculty and student body; the lack of an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the faculty becomes apparent. A sequenced course of study is important in educating psychologists and is required by Rule 21U-11.06(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The psychology program at Union is not an organized, sequenced program. There are no psychology departments at Union. The Union has five psychology programs", plus individualized "programs" in general psychology. The five "programs" are Adlerian psychotherapy, Gestalt and clinical psychology, humanistic and clinical psychology, marriage and family therapy, and psychoanalysis. Petitioner was not in one of the above- named "programs", but was in an individualized, general "program" in psychology. There is no evidence that there is an organized integrated sequence of study designed by the faculty for any of the five named psychology "programs", and even less evidence that there is any organized integrated sequence of study for the individualized, general "program" in psychology. Petitioner's testimony at the hearing and before the Board on June 25, 1985 indicates that Petitioner was responsible for her doctoral psychology program at Union. Petitioner's Learning Agreement and Program Summary may have thrown some light on whether her individual program was an organized integrated sequence of study but neither was introduced into evidence. The record reflects that Petitioner wrote and designed her own program, which was then approved by her doctoral committee which she assembled. The Petitioner did not present evidence of a set of standards for the psychology programs of state universities of Florida. The Petitioner did demonstrate that Union does have some similarities with psychology programs of the state universities. There is evidence that the psychology programs of the state universities are in regionally accredited institutions, and that they constitute organized, integrated sequences of study designed by the faculty. The Petitioner avoided comparison between Union and the state university programs in these areas. The Petitioner did not graduate from a psychology program of the state universities. Dr. Charles A. Brownfield graduated from Unions Antioch College, receiving his Ph.D. in psychology on October 1, 1971 and was licensed by the Florida State Board of Examiners in 1973 under a statute with language similar to that of Section 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983). The evidence is insufficient to show that APA was approving doctoral psychology programs in 1971 or, if it was, whether the standards used at that time were the same as those standards adopted by APA in 1979 and amended in 1980. The statute under which Dr. Brownfield was licensed was repealed, effective July 1, 1979, by Chapter 77-457, Section 1, Laws of Florida and he was then licensed by exception under the new statute in 1982. The evidence is insufficient to show that any person graduating from Union between 1979 when APA adopted its standards for approving doctoral psychology programs and the effective date of the rule on April 5, 1984 was permitted by the Board to take the examination for licensure.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the board enter a final order DENYING Petitioner, Melodie K. Moorehead, certification to sit for the licensure examination in psychology. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of January 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 8th day of January 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3782 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings f Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1 with last sentence rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2 with last two (2) sentences rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 with the quoted language of subsections 1(a)(c)(d) deleted as unnecessary and the last sentence rejected as a legal argument. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. There was no evidence in the record that April 5, 1984 was the first time accreditation was an absolute prerequisite to taking the examination or that prior to that time applicants from schools in candidacy status were allowed to take examinations. Adopted, but clarified in Finding of Fact 12. Sentence 1-3 rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Sentence 4 adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Sentence 5 rejected because the more competent evidence shows 6 years as maximum period of candidacy (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, page 22). Sentences 6-7 adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Sentences 8-10 adopted but clarified in Findings of fact 10 and 14. Sentence 11 rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10 and 14 but clarified. Rejected as cumulative, immaterial and unnecessary. Sentence 1 adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 12 but clarified. Sentences 2 and 3 rejected as legal argument. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. The first paragraph rejected partly as hearsay and partly as not supported by substantially competent evidence. The second paragraph rejected partly as hearsay and partly as immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Sentence 1 rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. The evidence was insufficient to prove "established policy of the Board." Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified to show Brownfield's graduation from Union, Antioch College not as Union exists presently. Sentence 3 rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. No evidence that Union, Antioch College was not accredited, only that Union, in its status before February 25, 1985, was not accredited. Sentences 1 and 2 and the quoted statutory language not listed as a finding of fact but covered in the conclusion of law and mentioned as language similar to the present statute in Finding of Fact 20. Sentence 3 rejected as immaterial due to repeal of statute and changed facts. Sentence 1 rejected as immaterial because of changed fact. Sentences 2 and 3 rejected as arguments. Graduates from schools other than Union may also be denied on same circumstances. Covered in Background. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected in part as legal argument and in part as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4; 5 (except for first sentence which is adopted in Findings of Fact 22), 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 (except for first sentence which is adopted in Finding of Fact 23) and 12, (except first sentence which is adopted in Finding of Fact 23), are rejected as immaterial, cumulative and unnecessary. Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Paragraphs 1 and 2 rejected as immaterial. Paragraphs 3 and 4 adopted in part by Finding of Fact 24, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Paragraph 1 and the first and last sentences of paragraph 2 rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. The second sentence of paragraph 2 rejected as immaterial. The first part of paragraph 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 23 but otherwise rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected partly as a conclusion of law and partly as a legal argument. Sentences 1 and 2 rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. The last sentence rejected as a legal argument. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Covered in Background and in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Covered in Background. Covered in Background. Covered in Background. Covered in Background. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 and 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 and 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Biedermann, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Psychological Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randall A. Holland, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1170
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be subjected to sanctions based upon whether he engaged in personal conduct that seriously reduces effectiveness as a teacher; whether he violated the principles of professional conduct of the education profession; whether he intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and whether he failed to take reasonable efforts to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and to the student's mental health or physical safety.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida's Educator Certificate No. 533651, certifying him in the area of music. It is valid through June 3, 2004. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a music teacher in the Citrus County School District. He has been a teacher for 14 years and began teaching in Citrus County in August of 1993. During the 1996-1997 school year C.C. was a seventh grade student. She was 12 years of age until May of 1997, when she turned 13. She had taken violin lessons from the Respondent during the 1996-1997 school year and the Respondent had been one of her teachers since she had been in the second grade. C.C. was admitted to the National Junior Honor Society (NJHS) when she was in the seventh grade because she had good grades and was a good student. One of the fund-raising projects for the NJHS was a pineapple sale. C.C. participated in this sale and asked the Respondent if he would like to buy a pineapple and he agreed. At that point he hugged her and told her he loved her. She became somewhat upset at being hugged by the Respondent and his telling her that and made a note in her diary for February 27, 1997, that "Mr. Wedebrock told me he loved me. I don't know what to make of it." This made her somewhat uncomfortable and embarrassed. The Respondent told C.C. he loved her several times over the early months of 1997. This made her feel uncomfortable since she was only 12 years old and did not think she needed to hear such comment from her teacher. She had never been spoken to by another teacher in that way and never saw Respondent tell any other students that he loved them in that way. It embarrassed her. The Respondent gave C.C. souvenirs from a trip to Disney World and marked two brochures from Disney World with his rankings of the many different rides or attractions. He gave her those brochures and gave her a key chain with her name on it and a pin. At the same time he gave her a note which said among other things "maybe some day we can go together" (referring to Disney World). The Respondent had called her into his office to give her the Disney World-related items. She had never seen the Respondent give presents to any other student. Near the end of the school year the Respondent wrote a note to C.C. and placed it in her violin case along with several pieces of music. The Respondent then told C.C. to go look in her violin case. When she did so she discovered the note along with "Music of the Night" a piece from Phantom of the Opera. The note read as follows: Please remember everything I told you this year. It's really true times a billion! Times infinity! Please just give me a chance. That's all I ask of you. You are my music of the night . . . I'll miss you (over) so much this summer! I'll miss seeing you in chorus next year. I'm sure you would have made All State! Did you know that you could be a peer counselor at CHS (hint hint). I just need to know how you feel about me. My love for you is so strong and deep. Should I just stop? Or do you think some day you'll love me? Have a great summer! Enjoy your new violin! I love you!!! (Emphasis from the original) C.C. thought the note was embarrassing and somewhat disgusting coming from a teacher. She showed the note to her sister who was one year younger than C.C. Her sister believed that C.C. should show the note to her mother and father. C.C. decided to tell her mother. Later, at a restaurant, C.C. placed the note in her mother's hands and then ran into the bathroom. After receiving the note, C.C. became quite withdrawn, having less interaction with others. When she gave her mother the note her mother noticed that she was extremely upset and teary-eyed and did not want to talk to her mother or step- father. This was unusual behavior for her. C.C.'s mother and step-father decided to notify the school about the note; however, at C.C.'s request they waited until the last day of class with the Respondent before revealing it to the school administration. C.C.'s mother and step-father went to the school and in Mr. Eldridge's absence they spoke to Ms. Staten, the assistant principal. They informed her of the situation with the Respondent and the note, although C.C. did not go with them because of her embarrassment. Both C.C.'s mother and step- father were very upset about the contents of the note and the Respondent's expressions towards C.C. After meeting with the parents Ms. Staten informed the principal, Mr. Eldridge, of the situation when he returned. Mr. Eldridge had a meeting with the Respondent that day and the next day Ms. Staten, Mr. Eldridge, and the Respondent met again. During the course of that second meeting the Respondent agreed to resign. Ms. Stiteler, the Director of Personnel for Citrus County Schools met with the Respondent on May 30, he admitted to her that he had given the note to C.C. He appeared rational and lucid during the course of that interview and told Ms. Stiteler that he did not know why he wrote the note in question but admitted having feelings for C.C. and said he had not intended to have those feelings. He said he was fond of her and that she was a special student and was very bright and musical. The Respondent acknowledged that he himself had noticed a change in C.C.'s behavior (withdrawal) after he had given her the note in question. The Respondent also wrote a note to C.C.'s parents which he gave to Ms. Stiteler. Among other things he promised in that note to never again express his feelings for C.C., but does not deny that he had the feelings previously expressed. The Respondent's actions damaged the trust that C.C.'s parents, C.C., and her sister had placed in him as a teacher. It also lessened the trust the administrators, such as Ms. Stiteler, Mr. Eldridge, and Ms. Staten, confided in him as well as their trust in his judgment. The Respondent has experienced weight problems much of his life and, in fact, during the relevant time period he was considered "morbidly obese." He strongly desired for obvious health reasons, to end his obesity and so on April 19, 1996, began seeing Dr. Azeele Borromaeo, M.D. Dr. Borromaeo prescribed the dietary drug combination of Phentermine and Fenfluoramine, commonly known as "Phen-fen." While he was taking Phen-fen the Respondent met regularly with Dr. Borromaeo. In the fall of 1996, he complained of mood swings, great irritability, forgetfulness, and other side effects, such as dry-mouth, frequent headaches, and sexual problems. In November of 1996, after such complaints, the doctor took him off Phen-fen for about a month. The side effects subsided at that time. During the time the Respondent had been on Phen-fen through November 1996, his weight decreased from 359 pounds to 289 pounds. Given that degree of success he decided to begin again taking Phen-fen in December of 1996. He noticed a return of the side effects almost immediately. The forgetfulness, confusion, nausea, sensitivity to light and sound, and irritability all returned and the Respondent says it got progressively worse through the first half of 1997 while he was taking Phen-fen. His wife described the effects as getting worse and worse. Beginning in about February of 1997 through May 1997, the Respondent wrote and said the inappropriate things to C.C. referenced in the above findings of fact. The Respondent candidly admits that he expressed these feelings, of an amorous nature, referenced in the above findings but professes not to know why he wrote or said those things to the student in question. He maintains he was confused, depressed, and suffering from the other referenced side effects of the drug at the time. The Respondent's professional peers, Mr. Eldridge and Ms. Staten, did not notice any abnormal behavior by the Respondent while he was working at school. They perceived him to be happy and in control of his personality. Ms. Staten was his supervisor during the school year and saw him almost daily, including in his classroom setting. She did not notice anything unusual about his behavior and found him personable and jovial. Neither C.C. nor S.G., a classmate, noticed any unusual behavior by the Respondent in the classroom, such as forgetfulness or excessive irritability. In his visits to Dr. Borromaeo and his primary care physician, Dr. Dwinelle, the Respondent noted the he was a little irritable and had some sexual problems and dry mouth from February through May of 1997, but did not, at least according to the doctors' notes, complain of any of the other side effects of Phen-fen. The Respondent did not mention any effects of the use of the drugs as a possible explanation for his conduct in his conversations with Mr. Eldridge, Ms. Staten, and Ms. Stiteler around the time of his resignation. Following his resignation from his teaching position, the Respondent underwent a neuro-psychological examination from Sidney J. Merrin, Ph.D., a psychologist in private practice in Tampa, Florida. A variety of psychological tests on the Respondent was performed, lasting approximately 15 hours. Dr. Merrin also conducted a counseling session with the Respondent. Dr. Merrin concluded as shown in his report, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, including Exhibit A thereto, that: . . . There was nothing in his examinations that would support any contention he is an emotionally or mentally disturbed individual that would prompt him to invade the privacy of a young student or disturb the decency of normal interpersonal relationships. I see nothing in his examinations that would describe him in pathological terms. Consequently, should he have behaved as he described, in the manner he had, the basis for that behavior must then be ascribed to a temporary condition of short-term destabilization from which he has now very adequately recovered. In his deposition Dr. Merrin opined that whatever did occur in his estimation would have been unlike the Respondent's usual personality to the extent that something in the interim had to have changed his behavior or reduced his impulsivity controls. Dr. Merrin opined that it could have been the introduction of Phen-fen. Dr. Una D. McCann is an associate professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University. She has conducted clinical and pre-clinical research on a variety of different amphetamine analogs, including Fenfluoramine, for over 10 years. Her interest in studying Phen-fen is that it is an amphetamine analog that happens to be neurotoxic. It has been shown in animals to damage certain brain cells which produce the chemical serotonin, related to mood. Her research has been directed to achieving understanding of the effect of Phen-fen and related drugs towards specific cells such as those that make serotonin in the brain. Thus Dr. McCann's primary interest as a psychiatrist has been to determine what happens to humans who take Phen-fen, whether the brain's serotonin neurons are damaged from taking the drug and whether and to what extent any psychiatric effects flow from that damage. There is no definitive study according to Dr. McCann's testimony, which shows that Phen-fen can cause such personality changes or behaviors as are involved in the Respondent's actions in this case. Dr. McCann is aware of some 30 case studies or histories of people who, while taking the drug combination called Phen-fen had exhibited aberrational psychiatric symptoms and behaviors. Dr. McCann did not examine and test the Respondent but upon being provided information of his circumstances and the actions he took at issue in this case, she concluded that his behavior toward the student could have been influenced by his use of Phen-fen. The Respondent is no longer taking Phen-fen and the evidence indicates he has returned to his baseline psychiatric state. He has exhibited no such abnormal and inappropriate behavior since abandoning the use of Phen-fen. The Respondent has an excellent teaching background, with excellent evaluations and no other disciplinary problems. He has been a teacher for 14 years and began teaching in Citrus County in August of 1983. He has been a very effective teacher with no personality traits or behaviors other than those in the time referenced-above which have caused any difficulties in his relationships with students, other teachers, or administrators. His family history is that of a stable marriage and of his being a loving father to his three children. There is little in the evidence of record to show any pattern to the objectionable behavior involved in this proceeding. Thus it would appear, with his history of exhibiting a stable personality and stability in his employment life and family life that, along with the rather scant available medical and scientific evidence, that there may indeed be some causal relationship between the Respondent's use of Phen-fen and his inappropriate actions towards the student in question. Persuasive evidence, however, has not been presented to show as through appropriate scientifically managed, and refereed that the use of Phen-fen abrogates such a person's exercise of free- will, that it abrogates his sense of reality nor that it prevents him from knowing what he is doing as he commits certain behaviors. It was not shown to prevent him from being able to control his own actions. Phen-fen may cause severe depression and the other symptoms and psychiatric problems referenced in the above findings of fact while the associated depression and other problems possibly, although not proven to have been caused by Phen-fen, may have caused a lowering of his impulse control which relates to the exercise of bad judgement, the clear and convincing evidence shows that at the time he committed the behaviors in question he was in touch with reality. Although he exhibited abysmally poor judgment on those occasions, he knew what he was doing at the time and in fact never denied it when interviewed by his superiors in the school system. Consequently, it cannot be found that the use of Phen-fen abrogated his responsibility for his actions.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the above findings of fact, including those of the mitigatory circumstances, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Petitioner Agency suspending the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years, during which time he should engage in therapy and counseling from a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist with a view towards showing that he is mentally and emotionally recovered and able to work with children and otherwise perform the duties of a public school teacher. Upon his completion of such counseling and therapy, under a professionally-mandated schedule and regimen, he should be required to provide a written opinion of a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist to the Department of Education, establishing that he is mentally and emotionally able to work with children and otherwise perform the duties of a public school teacher before his licensure should be restored to active, unrestricted status. He should also be placed on probation for a period of five years following any such reinstatement, under such terms and conditions as the Education Practices Commissions may deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a longtime Florida resident, having moved to the state when she was five, and thereafter was reared and educated in Dade County Florida. Petitioner received an AA degree from Dade County Junior College, a BA from Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida, and a Masters Degree from Lone Mountain College in San Francisco, California via an external program based in the Miami/Dade area. In pursuit of a Ph.D. in psychology, Petitioner applied to Union was accepted and matriculated there from 1981 through 1953, and received her Ph.D. in psychology on June 29, 1953. Upon receipt of her Ph.D. degree in psychology, Petitioner was required to fulfill a one-year post-doctoral supervision prior to applying for certification to take the psychology licensure examination. Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1953). Petitioner satisfied this requirement from June 30, 1953 to June 30, 1954 by engaging in psychotherapy under the supervision of Dr. Ted Aidman. Petitioner then applied to the Board for certification to take the psychologist licensure examination. Petitioner applied to take the examination under the provisions of Section 490.OO5(1), Florida Statutes (1953) and in pertinent part is quoted below: Any person desiring to be licensed as a psychologist shall apply to the department to take the licensure examination. The department shall license each applicant who the board certifies has: * * * (b) Submitted proof satisfactory to the Board that he has received a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or that he has received a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to the standards of training of those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association or the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities. The Board adopted Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code, to implement Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983) and essentially codified the criteria for American Psychological Association (APA) approved programs for the first time in this rule. The rule took effect on April 5, 1984. The pertinent part of the rule is quoted below: In order to be certified by the Board as eligible for examination pursuant to Section 490.005(1), Florida Statutes, an applicant must: * * * Submit proof of the completion of a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association the Board will apply the following criteria: (emphasis supplied) Education and training in psychology must have been received in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. * * * 5. The doctoral program must be an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program. The American Psychological Association Accreditation Handbook, Criteria For Accreditation of Doctoral Training Program and Internship in Professional Psychology (Handbook), adopted in January 1979 and amended in January 1950, sets out criteria that the doctoral programs must meet to be eligible for accreditation by APA and in pertinent part are listed below: A. Training in professional psychology is doctoral training offered in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Council of Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). * * * The faculty of the program must have clear authority and primary responsibility for all aspects of the program (even if the program cuts across institutional administrative lines). The program must include an integrated, organized plan of study and must ensure a breadth of exposure to the field of psychology. In the Introduction of A Handbook of Accreditation (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, page 1) accreditation is defined as both a process and a result and in pertinent part is quoted below: As a process, it is a form of peer review in which educational institutions establish a set of criteria and procedures by which they and their fellows are judged. As a result, it is a form of certification by which the qualify of an educational institution, as defined by the accrediting body's criteria, is affirmed. The forms of Affiliations are discussed in A Handbook of Accreditation and in pertinent part quoted below: Postsecondary educational institutions may be affiliated with the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, and through it with the Association, in either two ways. One is membership, which is synonymous with accreditation; the other is candidacy, a preaccreditation status. [page 3] . . . an institution continues its candidacy for accreditation for a fixed period of time - usually no longer than six years - until it either fulfills the Criteria for Accreditation or has its affiliation with the Commission terminated. [page 3] . . . Candidacy indicates that an institution meets the Criteria for Candidacy for Accreditation and is progressing toward accreditation; it does not, however, auto- matically assure eventual accreditation . . . [page 3, 4] The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools' evaluative criteria for candidacy highlight that such standards differ from accreditation standards. A Handbook of Accreditation explains the second evaluation criteria as follows: This criteria differs from the second evaluative criterion for accreditation in that it speaks of a candidate's accomplishing its immediate purposes. The difference is meant to acknowledge that a candidate is not yet fully developed to the point at which it has the ability to accomplish all of its purposes. [page 19] The fourth criteria for candidacy status indicates that candidacy status is not equivalent to accreditation. The fourth evaluative criteria reads in pertinent part: 4. The institution has the potential to achieve accreditation within the candidacy period. In making this judgment, the candidate's present condition, its plans and its timetable for developing to the point where it meets the Criteria for Accreditation must be examined. Candidacy is of a limited duration, and the Commission seeks to determine through this criterion that the candidates current plans are likely to allow it to achieve accreditation within this limited period. [page 20] Union received formal accreditation on February 25, 1985 by the North Central Association for Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institution of Higher Education ("Commission"), a regional accrediting body recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. During Petitioner's matriculation at Union, and at the time she graduated, Union was in a candidacy status or a preaccreditation status. Union was in candidacy status from 1979 to 1985, a period of six (6) years which is considered the maximum period without special Commission action for extension. Union had to satisfy all thirteen (13) general institutional requirements and all four (4) evaluative criteria to be granted candidacy status. To achieve accreditation, Union had to sustain and maintain the same thirteen (13) institutional requirements and satisfy a similar, but different group of four (4) evaluative criteria. The same general institutional requirements and basically the same evaluative criteria are required for both candidacy status and accreditation but candidacy and accreditation are not the same. In candidacy status the institution is trying to assure the Commission of its ability, financial and otherwise to maintain a viable program. In accreditation the certification has been affirmed. No evidence was presented to show that APA, in its approval process, would substitute candidacy status for accreditation status. In fact the evidence was conclusive that regional accreditation was an important standard and a reasonable criterion in the evaluation and approval of psychology programs by the APA. The evidence is clear that the accreditation requirement of the rule in question is comparable to the requirement of regional accreditation by APA in its approval process. To demonstrate that a program is able to produce qualified health professionals the APA requires that a program must articulate what the program is and what that program requires. A pertinent section in the Handbook under Training Models and Curricula, page 5, is quoted below: C. The foundation of professional practice in psychology is the evolving body of know- ledge in the discipline of psychology. While programs will vary in emphasis and in available resources, sound graduate education in general psychology is therefore essential in any program. The curriculum shall encompass the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full-time resident graduate study. Instruction in scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurement, and history and systems of psychology must be included in every doctoral program in professional psychology. . . (emphasis supplied) The requirement of a sequenced course of study is an important and essential criteria of the APA in the training of a psychologist. The evidence is clear that the requirements of Rule 21U- 11.06(1)(b)5., Florida Administrative Code, are comparable to the standards for APA approval of a doctoral program with regard to the design of study by the faculty even though the language "sequence of study" does not appear in the APA standards. Dr. Charles A. Brownfield graduated from Union, Antioch College receiving his Ph.D. in psychology on October 1, 1971 and was licensed by the Florida State Board of Examiners in 1973 under a statute with language similar to that of Section 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983). The evidence is insufficient to show that APA was approving doctoral psychology programs in 1971 or, if it was, whether the standards used at that time were the same as those standards adopted by APA in 1979 and amended in 1980. The statute under which Dr. Brownfield was licensed was repealed, effective July 1, 1979, by Chapter 77-457, Section 1, Laws of Florida and he was then licensed by exception under the new statute in 1982. The evidence is insufficient to show that any person graduating from Union between 1979 when APA adopted its standards for approving doctoral psychology programs and the effective date of the rule on April 5, 1984 was permitted by the Board to take the examination for licensure.
The Issue The issue is whether the School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has worked for the Polk County School District (District) in various capacities –- e.g., classroom teacher, physical education instructor, dean of students, assistant principal –- for the past 20 years. Respondent has been an assistant principal for the past 11 years, and at the time of the suspension giving rise to this proceeding, he was an assistant principal at Homer K. Addair Career Academy. Respondent has a Master’s degree in educational leadership from Nova Southeastern University (Nova), and he is certified in that field by the Florida Department of Education (DOE). Respondent is in the District’s “principal pool,” which is the program from which principals are selected for the District’s schools. He has also served as a “teacher recruiter” for the District. Respondent and another assistant principal, Jennifer Dean, started talking about pursuing doctorate degrees together at some point between the summer of 2004 and April 2005.1 Respondent and Ms. Dean are neighbors and close friends. They attend the same church, and their families regularly spend time together. Ms. Dean is the Respondent in the related DOAH Case No. 06-0683. The primary reason that Respondent and Ms. Dean were interested in obtaining doctorate degrees was to enhance their standing in the principal pool so as to give themselves a better chance of being hired as school principals.2 Respondent also believed that a doctorate degree would help him get a teaching position at a college or university. Respondent and Ms. Dean credibly testified that they were unaware that they would be eligible for $1,750 pay supplements from the District if they had doctorate degrees. Respondent and Ms. Dean looked into the doctoral program at Nova and several other traditional universities in the area, but they determined that those programs were not suitable for their needs because of the cost of the programs and the time that it would take them to obtain degrees. Respondent looked into several online universities that offered doctoral degrees, including Belford University (Belford). He learned about Belford through a “pop up” advertisement while he was browsing on the Internet. In September 2005, Respondent sent Ms. Dean an e-mail referring her to Belford’s website and told her that “I think this may be the program for us.” Belford is described on its website as a “virtual university with administration offices located in Humble, Texas,” and according to the website, Belford is accredited by “two renowned accreditation agencies on-line education, namely the International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities (IAAOU) and the University Council for Online Education Accreditation (UCOEA).” Notwithstanding Belford’s accreditations and its characterization of itself as a “virtual university,” Belford’s website includes a number of statements that call into question its legitimacy as an educational institution, such as: “Get a degree for what you already know!”; “No admissions. No attendance. No hassle.”; “Add degrees to your resume in just 7 days and open avenues to promotion and better jobs!”; and “Get all your money back if you do not get approved!” The website explains that to obtain a doctorate degree from Belford, an applicant must have “at least 8 years of work or life experience relevant to [his or her] desired major.” That eligibility requirement “may be satisfied in any of the following ways: prior job experience in any field; previous educational achievements; employer-sponsored training and attendance of workshops; participation in organizations, both professional and non-professional; personal goals, lifestyle, hobbies, and travel; participation in volunteer activities and community service; and independent reading, viewing, listening or writing.” A doctorate degree can be received from Belford “without attending classes or taking admissions anywhere.” Respondent reviewed the information on Belford’s website, and he also contacted Belford by phone to get additional information about its doctoral program and its accreditation status. When he called Belford, Respondent was told that its degrees were accepted “worldwide” but he was told that information as to whether Belford’s degrees were accepted in Florida was “confidential.” Ms. Dean told Respondent that she contacted Lois Schuck, the District’s certification specialist, regarding whether a doctorate degree from Belford would be accepted for certification purposes. Respondent did not have any direct communications with Ms. Schuck on the issue. Respondent relied on Ms. Dean’s representation that Ms. Schuck told her to go ahead and get the degree from Belford and then submit it for a determination as to whether it would be accepted for certification purposes. However, as detailed in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 06-0683, the evidence was not persuasive that Ms. Schuck actually gave Ms. Dean that advice. On or about November 10, 2005,3 Respondent applied for a doctorate degree from Belford by filling out the form on Belford’s website. In the boxes provided on the form, he entered information detailing his education, work, and other life experiences. The information Respondent provided to Belford included his resume, a five-page summary of his life experiences, and the materials that he put together as part of the application process for the principal pool. He did not submit transcripts or other official evidence of his Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees to Belford. Respondent did not attend any classes at Belford, nor did he prepare or defend a dissertation in order to obtain his doctorate degree from Belford. He received the degree based solely on the package of information described above. Respondent testified that the information that he submitted to Belford to obtain his degree accurately reflected his education, work history, life experiences, and other qualifications. The School Board offered no evidence to the contrary and, indeed, its witnesses acknowledged that they had no reason to believe that the information Respondent submitted to Belford was inaccurate.4 Respondent obtained the base-level doctorate degree, which according to Belford’s website costs $549. The degree was issued to Respondent within two weeks of the time that he applied for it, and Respondent was not required to pay for the degree until he was advised by Belford that he would receive the degree based upon the information submitted. A traditional doctorate degree, such as a Ph.D., takes several years to receive, costs thousands of dollars, and involves extensive coursework as well as the preparation and defense of a lengthy dissertation. Respondent’s “official transcript” from Belford reflects that he was awarded a Doctor of Arts degree with a major in educational administration on November 10, 2005. The transcript makes no reference to the fact that the degree was based upon “life experiences” rather than a traditional course of study. Respondent’s transcript includes a grade point average (GPA) of 3.18. Unlike Ms. Dean, Respondent was not interested in a higher GPA, which cost more money. Respondent’s transcript lists eight courses with specific grades -- from “A” to “C+” -- awarded for each course. Respondent testified that he did not attend those courses, and that it was his understanding that the grades shown on the transcript were based upon the information that he submitted to Belford, which reflected the extent of his experience in the areas identified in the course descriptions. On November 29, 2005,5 Respondent and Mr. Dawson met with Ms. Schuck to give her copies of their Belford transcripts for certification purposes. Ms. Schuck was unable to process the transcripts for certification purposes at that time because they did not include the date that the degrees were awarded. She handed the transcripts back to Respondent and Ms. Dean during the meeting and advised them to get her dated transcripts.6 Respondent and Ms. Dean obtained dated copies of their transcripts from Belford, and Ms. Dean sent them to Ms. Schuck through interoffice mail. Ms. Dean testified that she called Ms. Schuck to confirm that she received the degrees and to check on their status. Ms. Dean testified that Ms. Schuck told her that she had received the degrees and that she had given them to Ms. Butler for processing. Ms. Dean passed that information along to Respondent. Ms. Dean’s testimony regarding her conversation with Ms. Schuck was not persuasive. Indeed, the more persuasive evidence establishes that Ms. Schuck never received the dated transcripts, but rather that they were received by Pam Merritt, an administrative assistant in the District’s personnel office. Ms. Merritt put the transcripts in Judy Butler’s in- basket for processing. Ms. Butler’s responsibilities include processing salary changes for District staff. Ms. Butler is not responsible for reviewing transcripts or degrees for certification purposes. That review is done by the District’s certification office and is supposed to occur prior to the transcript or degree being forwarded to the personnel office for purposes of a salary change. Ms. Butler assumed that Ms. Dean’s degree was in her in-basket for purposes of a salary change even though there was no cover letter or other directions with the transcript. She did not see Respondent’s transcript because it had somehow gotten affixed to Ms. Dean’s transcript. Ms. Butler placed Ms. Dean’s salary change on the agenda for the Salary Classification Committee (SCC), and on January 26, 2006, the SCC approved a $1,750 salary supplement for Ms. Dean based upon her Belford doctorate degree. On January 28, 2006, Ms. Butler discovered Respondent’s transcript as she was pulling apart the documents from the SCC meeting for inclusion in a package for the Superintendent to review. On that same date, she e-mailed Respondent congratulating him on the award of his degree and advising him that his degree would be placed on the agenda for the SCC’s next meeting “so that [Respondent] can begin getting the supplement of $1,750.” Respondent assumed from this e-mail (and the representations given to him by Ms. Dean) that the salary change was being processed because his degree had been reviewed by Ms. Schuck and that it had been accepted for certification purposes. However, as noted above, Ms. Schuck had never received the degree. Ms. Butler sent a copy of the e-mail to David Lauer, the District’s assistant superintendent for human relations. Mr. Lauer received the e-mail on January 31, 2006, when he returned to the office. Mr. Lauer knew Respondent, and he was surprised to learn that he had obtained a doctorate degree. He asked Ms. Butler to give him the documentation related to Respondent and Ms. Dean, which she did. Mr. Lauer reviewed the Belford website for approximately 45 minutes and determined that it was a “diploma mill” and that the doctorate degrees obtained by Mr. Dawson and Respondent were “bogus.” Mr. Lauer also spoke with Ms. Schuck and asked her to determine whether Belford is an accredited university for DOE certification purposes. Ms. Schuck did so by e-mailing Mandy Mims, her contact at DOE. Ms. Mims advised Ms. Schuck that “Belford is not accredited by any agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education, so degrees earned would not be appropriate for certification purposes.” Mr. Lauer was “flabbergasted” by the situation, and because he considered the submittal of bogus degrees to be “so serious and so contrary to what we believe in as educators,” he went directly to the Superintendent, Dr. Gail McKinzie, instead of first speaking to Respondent and Ms. Dean to get their side of the story. Mr. Lauer reported the situation to Dr. McKinzie on February 1, 2006. That same day, Dr. McKinzie reviewed the Belford website for approximately an hour and came to the same conclusions as Mr. Lauer regarding Belford and the nature of Respondent’s and Ms. Dean’s doctorate degrees. On February 3, 2006, Respondent was called to a meeting with Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer. Dr. McKinzie told Respondent that she was going to recommend that the School Board fire him because he had misrepresented his professional qualifications though the submission of the Belford degree. The meeting lasted approximately five minutes. Respondent was not given a meaningful opportunity to explain his side of the story at the meeting and, prior to the meeting, Respondent had no indication that the validity of his Belford degree was in question. To the contrary, he was under the impression -- through representations made by Ms. Dean and his interpretation of Ms. Butler’s e-mail -- that his degree had been accepted by the District and DOE. By letter dated February 8, 2006, Dr. McKinzie informed Respondent that she had recommended to the School Board that his employment be terminated. The letter advised Respondent of his right to request an administrative hearing, and Respondent timely did so through a letter dated February 10, 2006. The School Board approved Dr. McKinzie’s recommendation at its meeting on February 14, 2006, and Respondent has been suspended without pay since that date pending the outcome of this proceeding. The negative characterization of Belford and its degrees by Mr. Lauer and Dr. McKinzie is reasonable based upon the evidence of record. For example, in addition to the statements from the website referred to in Finding of Fact 12 that should put a reasonable person on notice that Belford is not a legitimate educational institution, a degree from Belford can be obtained in as little as one week; the applicant is allowed to select his or her GPA, with a higher GPA costing more money; the applicant is not required to pay for his or her degree until after learning that the degree will be issued; the applicant is allowed to select his or her graduation date, with back-dating available at an additional cost; Belford will “introduce [a major] as a new addition to [its] doctorate curriculum” if the major sought by the applicant is not on Belford’s list of majors; Belford does not require transcripts or other proof beyond the applicant’s representations that he or she has received lower degrees (e.g., Bachelor’s and Master’s) prior to awarding a higher degree (e.g., Doctorate); and a base- level doctorate degree from Belford costs only $549.00. It is unreasonable for anyone, and particularly someone like Respondent who has 20 years of experience in the education system, to believe that Belford is a legitimate educational institution or that a doctorate degree from Belford is a legitimate educational degree that would be accepted as such by DOE or the District. Thus, it is inferred that Respondent knew or should have known that a doctorate degree from Belford is not a legitimate educational degree that could be used to enhance his standing in the principal pool or bolster his professional qualifications. Respondent’s conduct was slightly less egregious that Ms. Dean’s because, unlike Ms. Dean, Respondent did not make any affirmative representations to the District about completing a “doctorate program,” and Respondent relied upon Ms. Dean’s representations about the substance of her alleged conversations with Ms. Schuck. Nevertheless, it is clear from the evidence that Respondent was attempting to misrepresent and improperly bolster his qualifications through the submission of a “doctorate degree” from Belford that he knew or should have known was not a legitimate educational degree. Respondent’s decision to purchase a doctorate degree over the Internet calls into question his judgment as well as his respect for the educational process, which, in turn, raises serious doubts about Respondent’s ability to be effective in the school system. Indeed, it is clear from the totality of the evidence -- and particularly the testimony of Dr. McKinzie and Mr. Lauer -- that Respondent’s ability to be an effective leader (as assistant principals and aspiring principals are supposed to be) in the District has been significantly impaired through his submission and continued defense of his Belford degree as a legitimate educational degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Polk County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 21st day of July, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is eligible for licensure by examination, with waiver of the national examination, as a psychologist in the State of Florida. Specifically the issues for determination are: Whether the Petitioner has a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Toledo, or received a doctoral-level psychological education as defined in Florida Statutes; Whether the Petitioner's Ph.D. was obtained from a program comparable to an the American Psychological Association (APA) accredited program; and Whether the Petitioner's internship met the requirements of experience in association with or under the supervision of a licensed psychologist as identified in Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Ilene R. Berson (Petitioner) received a Master of Education degree with a major in school psychology from the University of Toledo, in Toledo, Ohio, on or about August 25, 1990. The Petitioner received a Ph.D. from the University of Toledo on or about June 14, 1997. The doctoral program completed by the Petitioner at the University of Toledo was not accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) at the time of her attendance, and remained unaccredited at the time of this hearing. The APA does not accredit the Petitioner's doctoral internship program. The Petitioner has not enrolled in any program to augment her education since the award of her Ph.D. in 1997. In June 1998, the Petitioner applied for licensure as a Florida psychologist by examination with waiver. The Petitioner has taken and passed the EPPP exam, a national psychology licensure exam. On or about March 2, 1999, the Board of Psychology (Board) issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Licensure. In order to be eligible for licensure as a psychologist in Florida, an applicant must have a doctoral-level degree in psychology or an appropriate equivalent. The Petitioner does not have a Ph.D. in psychology. According to the Petitioner's college transcript, the Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in Education with a major in "Guidance and Counselor Education." According to the Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist, the Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in Guidance and Counseling Education with a school psychology concentration. There is evidence that the University of Toledo doctoral program completed by the Petitioner awarded degrees in "school psychology" and in "counselor education." Letters from University officials suggest that, despite the transcript's identification of her degree, the Petitioner's degree is in school psychology. Assuming that assertions related to the title of the Petitioner's degree are correct, the Petitioner has a Ph.D. in school psychology. The award of degrees and licensure in school psychology and general psychology involve separate courses of study and differing types of practice. Florida law provides for specific licensure of school psychologists. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner has a Ph.D. in psychology. Because the Petitioner's Ph.D. is not in psychology, the Petitioner must establish that she received a "doctoral- level" psychological education, as the term is defined by statute. The applicable statutory definition requires that her degree be granted by an accredited institution, and that her education be provided through an accredited program. The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools accredits the University of Toledo, an accrediting agency recognized and approved by the U.S. Department of Education. The APA does not accredit the psychology program at the University of Toledo. The APA is the only agency recognized and approved by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit doctoral programs in psychology. Because the University of Toledo does not have programmatic accreditation, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the psychology program at the University of Toledo is comparable to an APA-accredited program. As part of her application, the Petitioner submitted a comparability letter from Dr. Janet Graden. Dr. Graden is the director of the APA-accredited doctoral program in school psychology at the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Graden opined in her letter that based upon a review of the University of Toledo School Psychology Program Handbook and a review of the Petitioner's transcript, the Petitioner's doctoral program of study at the University of Toledo was comparable to the school psychology doctoral program at the University of Cincinnati. A school psychology program is not the equivalent of a psychology program. The Graden letter is insufficient to establish that the University of Toledo's psychology program is comparable to an APA-accredited psychology program. The Petitioner also offered the deposition testimony of Dr. George Batsche and Dr. Thomas Oakland in support of the assertion that the University of Toledo program was comparable to an APA-accredited program. In response, the Board offered the deposition testimony of Dr. Russell Bauer. Based upon review of the deposition testimony, the testimony of Dr. Bauer is persuasive and is credited. Dr. Oakland also submitted a comparability letter at the time of his post-hearing deposition. Dr. Oakland's letter states that he believes the Petitioner's "academic and professional experiences in conjunction with the . . . program from the University of Toledo together with her other professional experiences result in her being comparable to graduates of [Dr. Oakland's program at the University of Florida.]" According to Dr. Oakland's curriculum vitae, he is currently the director of the school psychology program at the University of Florida. Dr. Oakland's letter fails to establish that the doctoral program completed by the Petitioner is comparable to an APA-accredited program in psychology. Dr. Oakland's letter states only that the Petitioner is comparable to a graduate of the University of Florida program. The comparability of program graduates is not at issue in this proceeding. The greater weight of the credible evidence establishes that the University of Toledo doctoral course of study completed by the Petitioner is not comparable to an APA-approved doctoral program in psychology. Review of the Petitioner's transcript and course materials indicates that the coursework completed as part of the doctoral program at the University of Toledo is not comparable to an APA-approved psychology doctoral program. Dr. Bauer testified as to the factors considered by the APA in determining whether a program meets the minimum requirements for accreditation. Dr. Bauer opined that the University of Toledo program would likely not meet the minimum requirements for APA accreditation. Dr. Bauer reviewed the APA accreditation requirements and the University of Toledo doctoral program completed by the Petitioner. Dr. Bauer specifically addressed the coursework completed by the Petitioner as part of her doctoral program. Dr. Bauer opined that the University of Toledo program is not comparable to an APA-accredited program. Dr. Bauer's testimony is credited. Another requirement of Florida law for licensure as a psychologist is completion of appropriate internship and residency programs, each of at least 2,000 hours, for a total experience requirement of at least 4,000 hours. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner has completed the appropriate experience requirement. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner completed an appropriate 2,000-hour internship program. The Petitioner's application for licensure indicates that she interned with Dr. Jerome Zake, Dr. Constance Dorr, and with the Toledo public school system from September 8, 1990 through August 30, 1992. The application indicates that the internship included one and one-half hours of clinical supervision per week, and "at least" one hour of individual clinical supervision per week, and states a total number of hours at 1,580. The majority of the Petitioner's internship time was spent in a school setting: two elementary schools, a middle/high school, and a center for emotionally handicapped children. The public school internship was not APA accredited. The total number of hours of the Petitioner's internship is substantially less than 2,000. According to Dr. Zake, his supervision of the Petitioner extended from September 8, 1990 to August 30, 1992. Dr. Zake's submission to the board states that the Petitioner worked for him for a total of 250 hours in addition to her public school work. Dr. Zake's supervision included weekly half-hour meetings with the Petitioner. Dr. Zake indicates that all of the Petitioner's time was spent in evaluation, measurement and assessment of intellectual ability, aptitudes, or achievement that directly relates to learning or behavioral problems in an educational setting. Although the Petitioner disputes the information provided by Dr. Zake as to this point, there is no credible evidence to support her assertion that her work was other than as reported by Dr. Zake. According to Dr. Dorr, her supervision of the Petitioner extended from August 1991 to June 1992 while the Petitioner interned with the Toledo public school system. Dr. Dorr's submission to the board states that the Petitioner worked for a total of 1,330 hours as a "school psychologist intern." Dr. Dorr's supervision included twice-weekly one-hour meetings with the Petitioner. Dr. Dorr indicates that approximately one-half of the Petitioner's time was spent in evaluation, measurement and assessment of intellectual ability, aptitudes, or achievement that directly relates to learning or behavioral problems in an educational setting. Although the Petitioner disputes the information provided by Dr. Dorr as to this point, there is no credible evidence to support her assertion that her work was other than as reported by Dr. Dorr. Dr. Dorr was the Petitioner's primary supervisor during the internship. Dr. Dorr is unlicensed, and is not a member of the University of Toledo faculty. Dr. Zake is a licensed psychologist in Ohio, and was an adjunct faculty member of the University of Toledo. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner's internship complies with applicable requirements for licensure as a psychologist in Florida. Another Florida requirement for licensure as a psychologist is a 2,000-hour post-doctoral residency experience. In the license application, the Petitioner indicates that she worked as an "evaluator/therapist" from December 13, 1994 to June 16, 1998, with Psychology Associates of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, under the supervision of Dr. Lucia Horowitz. The Petitioner received her Ph.D. in June 1997. Therefore, according to the information set forth on the application, a substantial portion of the Petitioner's residency was completed prior to receipt of her doctoral degree. The application indicates that her position as an evaluator/therapist included 20 hours weekly for 156 weeks. The application states that her work included one hour of clinical supervision per week, and one hour of individual clinical supervision per week, and states the total numbers of hours at 3,120. According to Dr. Horowitz, her supervision of the Petitioner extended from June 15, 1997 to June 19, 1998. Dr. Horowitz reports that the Petitioner completed supervised experience of at least 2,000 hours in the year of her residency, including at least 900 hours in service-related experience, at least two hours of clinical supervision per week, and at least one hour of individual supervision per week. Dr. Horowitz identifies the location of the residency as "Psychology Associates of Mt. Pleasant" and "Lowcountry Children's Center." According to the Horowitz submission, the Lowcountry Children's Center is located in Charleston, South Carolina. The Petitioner's application for licensure does not identify the Lowcountry Children's Center as the site of a portion of her residency. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner's residency meets the requirements of law applicable to application for licensure as a psychologist in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Psychology enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a psychologist in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 16th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Betsy S. Singer, Esquire Paul & Singer, P.A. First Union Center 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1720 Tampa, Florida 33602 Donna Erlich, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Administrative Law Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked on the grounds that he fraudulently obtained a higher ranking teaching certificate and thereby committed an act of gross immorality and moral turpitude.
Findings Of Fact I. Respondent's Wrongdoing Respondent, age 33, taught school in Dade County for over six years. From 1969-1972, he taught physical education at South Miami Junior High School; he then resigned and did not return to teaching until 1978, when he became a substitute teacher at Brownsville Junior High School. Shortly thereafter, he was hired in a full-time position at Brownsville Junior High, where he remained until he resigned in July, 1980. His principal at Brownsville considered him a "very good teacher," (Tr. 55) as "one of the teachers who gave his very best." (Tr. 56.) (Testimony of Carstarphen, Oden; P-4.) Respondent attended high school and junior college in Pensacola. From 1966-1969, he attended Bethune Cookman College in Daytona Beach and earned a bachelor of science degree. His postgraduate training consists of one course he took at Nova University to secure a science certificate. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) During 1978, Respondent met Eugene Sutton ("Sutton"), an employee of Florida A & M University ("Florida A & M") located in Tallahassee, Florida. One month after their initial meeting, Respondent agreed to pay Sutton approximately $2,800 for a false transcript from Florida A & M purporting to award him a master's degree in elementary education. During the ensuing months, each party performed his part of the agreement: Respondent paid Sutton the $2,800, and Sutton furnished him a false transcript. The transcript, dated April 6, 1979, indicated that he had successfully completed various postgraduate courses at Florida A & M from 1976-1978 and had been awarded a master of education degree; the transcript was a forgery. He never attended Florida A & M University. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) Since 1969, Respondent had held a rank III (graduate) teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. A postgraduate degree qualifies a teacher for a higher ranking (rank II, post graduate) teaching certificate. So, in early 1979, Respondent filed an application for the higher ranking certificate; he attached to the application a copy of the fake master's degree transcript from Florida A & M and signed, under oath, the following notarization: I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraud- ulent means. (Section 231.28 F.S.) I fur- ther certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct. (Testimony of Carstarphen; P-4.) On June 28, 1979, the Department of Education--relying on the false transcript--approved his application and issued him a rank II, postgraduate teaching certificate, No. 257364. He then applied to his employer, the School Board, for a salary increase based on his postgraduate teaching certificate. His application was routinely granted. During the ensuing 12 months, the School Board paid him an additional $4,047.55 because of his higher ranking postgraduate teaching certificate. (Testimony of Carstarphen Gray; P-5, P-6, P- 8.) In mid-1980, Respondent's wrongdoing was discovered. On October 20, 1980, he pleaded guilty to criminal charges: forgery and grand theft-second degree (two counts). The Circuit Court of Dade County placed him on three years' probation and directed that restitution be made to the School Board. (P- 7.) Respondent has complied with the terms of his probation. He is now repaying, by regular payments, the money which he wrongfully obtained from the School Board. (Testimony of Carstarphen.) II. Appropriate Penalty: Suspension or Permanent Revocation The Respondent contends that his wrongful acts warrant suspension, not revocation of his teaching certificate. In support of that contention, he offered the following testimony: The reason I'm asking for this is that this was my chosen profession, and I think that I am good at it. I realize the fact that I made a tragic mistake that I'm sure would never happen again. It was a circumstance that I feel that someone would have to be involved in to really understand what actually happened. But I could only say that I'm requesting a suspension as opposed to a complete termi- nation so that I can pursue what I've been trained to do and, again, that I do well. (Tr. 48-49.) No evidence was presented which establishes that Respondent's wrongful acts have seriously reduced his effectiveness as a classroom teacher. Respondent has never before been convicted of a crime; neither has he been involved in any prior disciplinary infraction. (Testimony of Carstarphen.) Respondent did not fully cooperate with law enforcement officers investigating his conduct and the fake Florida A & M transcripts. For example, he refused to divulge the name of a friend--even though he did not know whether that person was involved in the fraudulent transcript scheme. (Testimony of McAllister, Jacobson, Carstarphen.) Respondent knowingly submitted the false Florida A & M transcript to the Department of Education; his motive was monetary gain. After filing the higher ranking postgraduate teaching certificate with his employer, he received increased salary payments for approximately one year. (Testimony of Carstarphen, McAllister, Jacobson, Gray.) III. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Parties The findings of fact proposed by the parties have been considered. Those proposed findings which are not incorporated above are rejected as irrelevant to the issue presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate, No. 257364. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1981.
The Issue This issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the doctoral program in psychology at the Fielding Institute, headquartered in Santa Barbara, California met the requirement of Rule 21U-11.006(1)(b)5., 7., 9., and 10B., Florida Administrative Code during the period 1981 through 1986 when the Petitioner was enrolled in and completed that program and consequently whether the Petitioner meets the standards for application for licensure by examination as a graduate of that program.
Findings Of Fact The Fielding Institute was organized in 1974 with administrative headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. Its mission is training psychologists through its doctoral degree program in psychology. The Petitioner, Dr. Kenneth Gordon, was enrolled in the Fielding Institute's doctoral degree program from 1981 through 1986 and successfully graduated from that program with a doctor's degree in psychology. The Fielding doctoral program (program) was designed for "adult learners" or "midlife career professionals" who have training and experience in psychology and related fields and who seek to further their higher education, but who are unable to re-locate to a traditional, geographical campus-based doctoral degree psychology program for the requisite three to five years required to complete such a program. The American Psychological Association (APA) is an accrediting agency for graduate programs in psychology. It does not mandate a single model of training for doctoral psychology programs and students but rather recognizes various models of training. The Fielding doctoral psychology program was designed to encompass the traditional areas of training and psychology within a non-traditional, multi-locational system of training. Fielding psychology students and faculty are disbursed throughout the country, where they are fully engaged in the educational program of the institute, which is developed and supervised at the Fielding administrative headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. During the period 1981 to 1986, the relevant period in this proceeding, when the Petitioner was a student with the Fielding Institute, Fielding's geographically disbursed doctoral students attended periodic regional seminars and sessions with faculty and students at various locations around the country. The doctoral program at Fielding is not accredited by the APA. It was not accredited by that agency during the time the Petitioner was enrolled in and graduated from the program. The Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure by examination in Florida. The Board denied that application finding that the program at Fielding was not comparable to programs accredited by the APA because the program at Fielding failed to meet certain specified requirements of Rule 21U-11.006(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner requested a formal hearing challenging that denial and the subject proceeding ensued. Student Enrollment and Core Curriculum The students and the faculty enrolled in and conducting the Fielding degree program are dispersed throughout the country. The admission procedure for the school commences with a written application and a field interview with a geographically available faculty member. Selected applicants are then invited to come to the Santa Barbara headquarters of the institute for a mandatory week long dialogue with other faculty members concerning the specifics of the doctoral degree program and the expectations regarding the student's participation in it. Fielding admitted students into the doctoral degree program three times a year using this process. During 1981 through 1986 the Fielding program had an identifiable body of students who matriculated into the program for a doctoral degree, although the students were dispersed throughout the country, studying in their own communities. All doctoral psychology students at Fielding during 1981 through 1986 were full time students, paying full tuition and pursuing their curriculum within established time limitations. The focus of the program at Fielding is the "learning outcome", which is described by Fielding as an evaluation of the competency of students within the "various dimensions of knowledge and skill that are involved in training a psychologist." A student's "learning outcome" is first evaluated by the program when a student is accepted by the program, which credits its students for knowledge and experience gained in their professions prior to entry into the program. A student is invited by the administrators of the Fielding program to submit any information which a student believes will substantiate the student's readiness to engage in the study program the student seeks to choose, out of the curriculum offered by Fielding. When a student is accepted by the program the student formulates a "blueprint" in which the student acknowledges previous expertise and discusses how he or she plans to use the Fielding program in meeting its requirements. This blueprint is called a "learning contract", entered into by the student with the student's faculty advisor and program director and approved by those persons. With the guidance of those faculty members, Fielding students, like the Petitioner, propose their own "learning contracts" to the Fielding administrators or faculty advisors, encompassing a curriculum for themselves which takes into account their own previous learning experiences and professional experience. In this process of arriving at a "learning contract", the student can take into account and allow for the student's personal concerns and professional goals but must still complete the Fielding-required curriculum in all the required study and knowledge areas in terms of academic, clinical and internship requirement parameters. The Fielding faculty designed the psychology curriculum, administered it, wrote the student guides or bulletins and produced seminars for instructive development during the time the Petitioner was enrolled, but the program did not offer classes of instruction in the formal, scheduled sense during that time. The required Fielding psychology curriculum could be completed in a different sequence by each student based on the individual student's previous experience, learning and needs. The sequence could be designed by the student although the curriculum itself was designed by the Fielding faculty and administrators. The Fielding students then would enter into the learning contract with the Fielding faculty and administrators. The contract would individualize the sequence of their program, as chosen by them, but it still had to fall encompass the required core of study, taking into account their own professional experience and their own professional goals, post-degree award. The learning contract reflected an agreement between the student and the Fielding faculty and administration that various required academic objectives, as defined by the faculty, would be satisfied by the student in a particular sequence and on a particular time table. Learning contracts are an accepted educational tool for designing a course of study both in psychology and in other disciplines. The psychology program at Fielding during the 1981 to 1986 period, when the Petitioner was enrolled, was an organized, integrated course of study designed by the psychology faculty of that institution who were responsible for the program's administration. The students had substantial latitude in the sequence of study arrived at for completing that program based upon the individual student's previous learning and professional experience as well as professional goals for the future. The control that the Fielding faculty maintained over the students course of study and progress through the program consisted of the faculty designing the program curriculum and the faculty's required approval of the students learning contracts. Institutional Requirements The Fielding doctoral program for 1981 to 1986 required the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full time graduate study in the Fielding program. Although its course bulletin, published in 1984, the one relevant to this proceeding, did not specifically contain a published minimum three academic year requirement, in practice the program had such a requirement. No student ever completed the doctoral psychology program at Fielding in less than three years, however, students were expected to complete the program within five years. The Fielding doctoral program does not give academic transfer credit for course work completed at other institutions. Credit is only given for satisfactory completion of the knowledge areas defined by and evaluated by the Fielding psychology faculty. Organized, Integrated Sequence of Study Designed by the Psychology Faculty The Fielding Institute employs the scholar-practitioner student training model for its doctoral students in psychology. That training model has three components: (a) the academic component, (b) the clinical training component, and (c) the research component. The academic component of the program was divided into twelve required "knowledge areas", encompassing the broader areas of clinical psychology, neuropathology, and psychopathology. The Fielding faculty provided a study guide for each knowledge area defining the parameters of that area, the resources to be applied in successfully completing that knowledge area, identifying the faculty who were experts in that area and the students' requirements for completing that area. During the 1981 to 1986 period each student was required to complete all required knowledge areas and to demonstrate competence through a comprehensive examination. The clinical training component required a minimum of 600 hours of clinical training, in a modality or area of practice other than the one for which the student had received prior training or experience before enrolling at Fielding. Student competency in clinical psychology was evaluated after the clinical training program, through a clinical examination. Successful students then proceeded to a formal clinical internship. During 1981 through 1986, the clinical internship in psychology consisted of a minimum of 1600 hours of supervised experience. After completion of the clinical training component, competency was evaluated through a "final clinical assessment." The research component resulted in a formal dissertation by the student. Students were required to prepare a concept research paper, which was expanded into a research proposal and finally into a dissertation, presenting the research and its results. Each Fielding doctoral student, including Petitioner, was required to participate simultaneously in the three program components, academic, clinical and research, during his entire tenure with the Institute, during the years when the Petitioner was enrolled. A program bulletin is a formal statement by an institution of the content and operation of its academic programs. The Fielding program bulletin for 1984 was the bulletin in effect when the Petitioner was enrolled in and graduated from the psychology doctoral program there. The program bulletin seemed to imply that the sequence of study and curriculum was designed by the students, rather than by the faculty. In fact the greater weight of the evidence indicates that that is not precisely the case, rather it shows that the faculty designed the curriculum and program, although the students had considerable latitude in choosing the sequence in which they would embark upon and complete the various courses or areas of study required to be completed by the faculty-designed curriculum. The bulletin also seemed to imply that the student, rather than the faculty, designed the elements of their own course work. In fact the greater weight of the evidence shows that certain course work is required by the curriculum designed by the Institute's faculty, although the students had choices regarding when certain course work would be embarked upon and courses could be elected in a student's desired area of emphasis, so long as the overall requirements of the curriculum were accomplished in less than five years. The program at the Fielding Institute however did not, and does not now, require its students to have "continuous access to faculty". Rather the program at Fielding offered study groups and periodic seminars and sessions during the time the Petitioner and other students were enrolled and graduated from that program but there was no showing how frequent those study groups, periodic seminars and sessions with faculty members and with other students were conducted or scheduled. Although the Petitioner maintains, in essence, that a residency-on- campus requirement such as is contained in the subject rule, is designed to achieve nothing more than the assurance of a minimum number of contact hours between students and faculty and students with other students, in fact a residency requirement is equally designed to ensure that there is administrative control by the faculty and administrators of the institution over the maintenance of quality of the program. The Fielding program did not develop a residency requirement until after the Petitioner had graduated from it. The Fielding Institute purports to have had an informal residency requirement during the time the Petitioner was enrolled prior to 1986. That requirement, which is not in the program bulletin, purported to require students to have as many hours of contact with the faculty that students would have had at programs accredited by the APA. There was no evidence presented however to establish the number of hours that students in APA programs have access to faculty members. Nor was there any evidence of the number of hours that Fielding students were informally required to have access to Fielding faculty nor to other students. There was nothing of record to support the contention that the number of hours Fielding required its students to have contact with faculty or other students was comparable to the number of hours students in APA approved programs had access to faculty members or other students. There is simply no evidence to show the number of hours required for such faculty and student contact, if indeed it was required, nor the number of study groups, periodic seminars and sessions between students and faculty which were scheduled and conducted whereby the students and faculty, who admittedly are dispersed across the nation, could have accomplished such faculty-student contact hours. Thus the program at Fielding, both as published in the bulletin, and as put into practice has not been shown to have required its students to have one year in residence ". . . at the institution full time." The subject rule provides that the residency requirement is met when it is shown that the program provides "continuous access" to the faculty and to other students with a period of continuous enrollment of not less than two out of three successive semesters "on the campus" of the institution from which the doctoral degree was granted. The Petitioner did not prove that Fielding actually has a campus. Although the rule contains no definition of the word, "campus" is a word with a plain and ordinary meaning. The meaning given by the Petitioner's witness to the word "campus" is not the plain and ordinary meaning of the word. The plain and ordinary meaning of the word "campus" encompasses, but is greater than the Petitioner's concept of a "locality that students and faculty meet for educational purposes." The Petitioner failed to establish when, where and how often the periodic seminars meetings and sessions were scheduled and conducted for faculty and students to meet for educational purposes, as well as for students meeting with other students. Consequently, even under the concept of the meaning of the word "campus" espoused by the Petitioner, it has not been established that Fielding Institute effectively required a period of continuous enrollment of not less than two out of three successive semesters on a campus of that institution from which the doctoral degree was granted. After 1986 Fielding responded to residency accreditation requirements of the APA by requiring documentation of the 1981 through 1986 methods of "regional professional socialization and association between faculty and students," formalizing the documentation of those "contact hours" as a graduation requirement. The Petitioner maintains that prior to 1986 the students were required to achieve their contact hours with other students and with faculty as a graduation requirement, that the nature of student-faculty and student-student contact hours did not change for the psychology students of Fielding after 1986 and that only the documentation requirement was added. The Petitioner maintains that Fielding students currently document the face to face contact hours between themselves, faculty and other students (not telephone contacts) in order to approximate the types of contacts available at a traditional single-site university campus program. The Petitioner, however, did not prove that the Petitioner and other Fielding students engaged in the program from 1981 to 1986 actually achieved a level of contact hours with faculty and other students for educational purposes which were comparable to those which could be achieved by students in such a doctoral program in full time residence at a traditional, university-based program. Although students were said by the Petitioner to have access to the faculty twelve months out of the year, because the evidence also shows that faculty and students are dispersed all over the country, it has not been demonstrated that the Petitioner or any other student could have ready access with any or all faculty members guiding the student, including the Petitioner's particular program, continuously through twelve months of the year or on any other frequently occurring basis. Cognitive-Affective Basis of Behavior The 1984 Fielding catalogue or bulletin did not include a discreet knowledge area or course of study published therein entitled "Cognitive- Affective Basis of Behavior." In practice however, the 1981 through 1986 Fielding doctoral program, which the Petitioner completed, did provide required academic course work in the area of cognitive-affective basis of behavior. This subject matter, "learning, memory, motivation, thinking, cognition theory" was incorporated into the other defined knowledge areas operated and required by the institution. It has been demonstrated that Rule 21-11.0006(1)(b)5., 7., 9., and 10B., Florida Administrative Code sets out standards of training that are comparable to standards of training of programs accredited by the APA.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a psychologist should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. - 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted, but not in itself materially dispositive. 8. - 30. Accepted. 31. - 33. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and rejected in the sense that it has not been proven that the types of contacts available to students with faculty and with other students approximates the types of contacts available at a traditional single site university. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and rejected in the sense that it has not been proven that the types of contacts available to students with faculty and with other students approximates the types of contacts available at a traditional single site university. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the substantial competent evidence and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but irrelevant. Accepted, but immaterial. Rejected as not in accordance with the greater weight of the substantial competent evidence and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. - 45. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. - 9. Accepted, however, the opinions of Dr. DePiano derive from his one day site visit are not in their entirety accepted in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law. 10. - 19. Accepted. 20. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 21. Accepted. 22. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence. 23. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the substantial competent evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 24. Accepted. 25. Accepted as to its first sentence but otherwise subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject hearing. 26. - 28. Accepted. 29. - 31. Accepted. 32. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 33. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 34. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 35. Accepted. 36. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive of this issue. 38. Accepted. 39. Accepted. 40. Accepted. 41. Accepted. 42. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 43. Accepted. 44. Accepted as to the first sentence of the proposed finding of fact, the last sentence is rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Rogow, Esquire 2441 S.W. 28th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 Beverly A. Pohl, Esquire 350 S.E. Second Street Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Virginia Daire, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Dan Bosanko, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Linda Biederman, Executive Director Board of Psychological Examiners 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner made application to Respondent to obtain a license as a psychologist by exception pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of Chapter 81- 235, Laws of Florida, as amended by Section 37 of Chapter 82-179, Laws of Florida, and Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the grounds that his doctoral degree did not meet the educational requirements of Subsection (2) of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. It was stipulated by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent that Petitioner's doctoral degree did not meet the specific course requirements of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner received his B.A. degree from Rutger's University, a master's degree in counselor education from Florida State University, and a Ph.D. in marriage and family counseling from Florida State University. Petitioner's doctoral dissertation concerned itself with one of the key aspects of Adlerian psychology called "social interest." This dissertation was of such professional significance as to result in an appearance of Petitioner for the purpose of presenting the paper to the American Society of Adlerian Psychologists. Petitioner's course of study for his doctoral degree focused primarily on Adlerian psychology. The total course work completed by the Petitioner exceeded the minimum requirements for his Ph.D. In addition to his educational training, the Petitioner has done individual counseling and psychotherapy for approximately eleven years. Within the general field of psychology there are a host of different subdivisions. One of these subdivisions is counseling psychology. Within counseling psychology there are different theories or methods relative to dealing with individuals, and one of these methods is the Adlerian method. It was this method which was the focus of the Petitioner's dissertation for his doctoral degree. Petitioner sought his licensure by exception by contending that he obtained a doctoral degree from an approved university in a program that is primarily psychological in nature. The Petitioner's application for licensure was denied on the basis that his course of study was not primarily psychological in nature because the program did not include at least one course in biological bases of behavior or cognitive-affective bases of behavior as required by subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection (2) of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Three other individuals, Dr. Kerr, Dr. Simpson, and Dr. Shreenan, applied for and were granted licensure as psychologists during the same period of time in which Petitioner applied and was denied licensure. Petitioner's educational qualifications were equal to or exceeded those of Drs. Kerr, Simpson, and Shreenan. Dr. Kerr, Dr. Simpson, and Dr. Shreenan were certified by the Florida Association of Practicing Psychologists and gained licensure as psychologists pursuant to Chapter 81-235 as amended by Section 37 of Chapter 82- 179, Laws of Florida, which mandated licensure of persons so certified. Petitioner did not apply for certification by the Florida Association of Practicing Psychologists. The evidence did not establish that Petitioner's failure to apply for such certification was in any part due to actions or inactions on the part of the Respondent. The specific course requirements of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code, were not applicable to those individuals gaining licensure through certification by the Florida Association of Practicing Psychologists. Rule 21U-11.05 was promulgated by the Board of Psychological Examiners in order to establish an objective method for evaluating the educational programs of those applying for licensure. The rule establishes the minimum qualifications for a program of study to be considered primarily psychological in nature.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 29th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mallory E. Horne, Esquire Randall A. Holland, Esquire BORNE, RHODES, JAFFRY & Assistant Attorney General HORNE Administrative Law Suite 800, Barnett Bank Bldg. 1601-The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On August 4, 1982, Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent to be licensed as a medical technologist. The application stated that he attended High Forest Academy in Nashville, Tennessee, from October 1971 until September 1972. As the result of iris studies there he was issued a certificate of completion in the course of medical laboratory technician. Mr. Claycomb's instruction at High Forest Academy was for a period of 52 weeks with no vacations except for national holidays. The ordinary class day consisted of several hours of lecture in the morning with several hours of laboratory work in the afternoon. Class was held five days per week. To determine if a school is "accredited" the Department relies on data published in the Education Directory of Colleges and Universities by the National Center for Educational Statistics. High Forest Academy is accredited for the instruction of medical technicians but is not accredited as a college or university. Petitioner has not provided evidence that High Forest Academy is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association as determined by the U.S. Commissioner of Education or the Florida Department of Education, or on an equivalent basis by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The education Mr. Claycomb received at High Forest Academy, if it had been received at an accredited college or university, is equivalent to 30 to 45 semester hours of instruction. Mr. Claycomb has been a medical technician for a period of 11 years. He is well experienced in the field and has the highest possible recommendations from his present and former employers. He is certified as both a medical technologist and as a medical laboratory technician on the register of American Medical Technologist (AMT). The AMT is a national society which provides certification only upon the passage of a competency examination. According to one witness on behalf of Mr. Claycomb High Forest Academy is accredited by the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES). The witness, who is the past president of the Florida AMT chapter, also testified that the Department accepts ABHES accreditation for purposes of Section 10D-41.25, Florida Administrative Code. Her testimony is hearsay because she was relating what another person told her. There is no independent corroborating evidence; therefore, her testimony does not support a factual finding. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Mr. Anthony R. Claycomb's application to be licensed as a medical technologist be denied without prejudice to his reapplication upon the successful completion of two years of academic study at an accredited college or university. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 3rd day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist on or about June 26, 1984 and Petitioner's application was considered by the Board of Psychological Examiners (Board). Petitioner's application for licensure was denied by the Board on the basis that Petitioner's doctoral program was not comparable to an American Psychological Association (APA) approved program in that the biological bases of behavior was not a requirement of Petitioner's doctoral program as required by Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code. The Board adopted Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code and essentially codified the criteria for APA approved program for the first time in this rule. The rule took effect an April 5, 1984. The pertinent part of the rule is provided below. In order to be certified by the Board as eligible for examination pursuant to Section 40.005(1), Florida Statutes, an applicant must: Complete the application form and remit the examination fee set by rule of the Board. Submit proof of the completion of a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard . of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association the Board will apply the following criteria: Education and training in psychology must have been received in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. The doctoral program must be publicly identified as a psychology program, and must specify in pertinent institutional catalogs and brochures its intent to educate and train psychologists. The psychology program must stand as a recognizable, coherent organizational entity within the institution. There must be a clear authority and pri mary responsibility for the academic core and speciality preparation, whether or not the program involves multiple administrative lines. The doctoral program must be an organized integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty. The program director must be a psy chologist. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a doctoral degree. The doctoral program must include super vised practicum and/or laboratory experiences appropriate to practice, teaching or research in psychology. The doctoral program shall require a minimum of: The equivalent of three full-time academic years of graduate study; Two academic years of the three shall be in full-time residence at the institution from which the doctoral degree is granted. The doctoral program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge and use of scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurements, and history and systems of psychology. Further, the program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge in the following subs tantive areas of psychology: Biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological, psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, psychopharmacology) Cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), Social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology, cultural-ethnic and group pro cesses, sex roles, organization and systems theory), and Individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differ ences, abnormal psychology, psychology of women, psychology of the handicapped). (Emphasis supplied.) Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code was adopted to implement Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983). The American Psychological Association Accreditation Handbook, Criteria For Accreditation of Doctoral Training Program and Internship in Professional Psychology (Handbook) adopted in January 1979 and amended in January 1980; sets out criteria that the doctoral programs must meet to be eligible for accreditation by APA and are listed below. Training in professional psychology is doctoral training offered in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Council of Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). The program, wherever it may be administratively housed, must be clearly and publicly identified and labeled as a professional psychology program. A recognizable, coherent organizational entity must be responsible for the program. The faculty of the program must have clear authority and primary responsibility for all aspects of the program (even if the program cuts across institutional administrative lines). The program must include an integrated, organized plan of study and must ensure a breadth of exposure to the field of psychology. The program must include supervised practicum, internship, field, or laboratory training appropriate to the practice of psychology. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty and a psychologist responsible for the program. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a degree. The institution must demonstrate its commitment to the program by appropriate financial support. APA recognizes that certain principles are basic to sound training in professional psychology and requires that these principles be adhered to in an APA approved doctoral program. These principles are found in the Handbook under Training Models and Curricula, and in pertinent part are provided below. It is the responsibility of the faculty to integrate practice with theory and research early in the program. Students should form an early identification with their profession. Faculty should be available to demonstrate and model the behaviors that students are expected to learn. A close working relationship between faculty and student is essential. The foundation of professional practice in psychology is the evolving body of knowledge in the discipline of psychology. While programs will vary in emphasis and in available resources, sound graduate education in general psychology is therefore essential in any program. The curriculum shall encompass the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full time resident graduate study. Instruction in scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurement, and history and systems of psychology must be included in every doctoral program in professional psychology. The program shall, further, require each student to demonstrate competence in each of the following substantive content areas: biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, sensation, psychopharmacology. cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology; cultural, ethnic, and group processes; sex roles; organizational and systems theory), and individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differences, abnormal psychology). (Emphasis supplied). The uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Perry was that competency in the area of biological bases of behavior is a fundamental requirement which a doctoral psychology program must require to properly train psychologists and the policy of the Board has been since its inception in 1981 that applicants for examination must have graduated from a program which required demonstration of competence in the foundation area of biological bases of behavior. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in the United States. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida. Dr. Perry testified that he had not reviewed all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida but that it was his belief that those programs were comparable to APA approved doctoral psychology programs. Based on Dr. Perry's service with the Board, he testified that the Board is not concerned with whether the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities of Florida are comparable with APA approved doctoral psychology programs when the applicant has graduated from one of the state universities of Florida.
