The Issue Did Petitioner successfully complete the necessary requirements for the Polk County School Board's (Board) Interim Principal Program as mandated in the Program for Preparing New Principals, promulgated under Section 231.087(5), Florida Statutes, by the Board and if so, should Petitioner be granted certification as a school principal in the Polk County School District?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In accordance with Section 231.087(5), Florida Statutes, the Board adopted a certification program for new principals in Polk County titled Program for Preparing New Principals (Program). All new principals in the Polk County School System are required to successfully complete and be certified under the Program. The Program is composed of several different programs. One of the programs is the Interim Principal Program which provides as follows: Introduction The Interim Principal Program provides a year-long experience which is designed to assist the Interim Principal in enhancing his/her administrative competencies. The Interim Principal Training Program is designed as a support program rather than performance appraisal mechanism. Goals The goal of the Polk County Interim Principal Program is to enable the Interim Principal to: Practice the skills of administration with the support and coaching of a supervisory team. Determine needs, set goals, establish priorities and seek avenues for achieving positive results. Adapt to stressful situations. Effectively and clearly express information orally and through written means, in both formal and informal situations. Develop self-confidence in a work setting and work role. Develop the expertise to manage a school site. Meet the requirements of Section 231.0861 (3), Florida Statutes. Be creative, maintain a positive climate and encourage teamwork within the school organization. Assume responsibilities at the school site with the guidance and support of peer principals. Participate in additional learning experiences to enhance the on-the-job experiences. Program Goals/Strategies Documentation will consist of the Interim Principal's goals expressed in a way which identifies the objective, lists the activities leading to the attainment of the objective, and the expected results in specific, measurable terms when possible. Two types of goals are to be formulated by the Interim Principal. They are: Organizational Goals Professional Growth Goals (developmental) The Interim Principal will formulate a minimum of two (2) goals within each of the categories. Formative Checklists These instruments are based on the Florida Principal Competencies and Job Function/Task Analyses. They are used as resources for identifying developmental needs of the Interim Principal and may provide a basis for the goals and related strategies and/or the off-site experiences and other training activities. Developmental Activities Program This is a calendar of events/activities which lists the specific activities in which the Interim Principal participates during the school year. These activities may be related to district, regional and state-wide training workshops or any off-site experiences in which the Interim Principal participates. Handbook of Helpful Hints for the First Year Principal Summative Checklist The handbook contains a "list of things to do" for the first year principal and is used by the Interim Principal to document areas of focus related to job expectations. Items are checked-off as they are handled. Supervisory Team The supervisory team for an Interim Principal consists of: The appropriate area superintendent Two peer principals Human Resource Development representative The two peer principals are selected by the area superintendent in consultation with the Human Resource Development representative and Interim Principal. They will also serve as members of his/her support team. The supervisory team's function is to review the Interim Principal's program and to provide input regarding the progress of the Interim Principal to insure the completion of his/her goals and developmental activities program. Each member of the supervisory team will interact with the Interim Principal at the school at varying times during the year. At least three (3) team conferences will be held with the Interim Principal, one meeting by the end of month three, one by the end of month eight and one by the end of month eleven. These meetings are in addition to the regular meetings with the area superintendent as a part of the district's performance appraisal system. Support Team Support team consists of: 1. Two peer principals The support team provides guidance and aid to the Interim Principal in the development of the goals and assists the Interim Principal as needed. Support team members serve as professional resource persons with whom the Interim Principal may consult during the year. Portfolio A portfolio for each Interim Principal will be housed in the Area Superintendent's office. The portfolio will include the names of the support staff, the written development goals, the formative checklists, Developmental Activities Program, "Handbook For The First Year Principal" checklist and a copy of the annual performance appraisal forms. Performance Appraisal The evaluation process for Interim Principals will be the same as that for experienced principals, and the same performance appraisal instruments will be used. Procedures Procedure Dates/Time Parameters Step No. 1 First/Month The Human Resource Development representative will provide an orientation concerning the Interim Principal Program, with emphasis on documentation methods. The Interim Principal and previous supervisor complete formative checklists related to Florida Principal Competencies and Job Function/Task Analyses. Interim Principal plans potential goals. Step No. 2 End of First Month The Interim Principal schedules a meeting with area superintendent and Human Resource Development representative to discuss possible goal statements, discuss formative checklists, select members of peer support team, and schedule supervisory team meetings. Step No. 3 Second Month The Interim Principal and Human Resource Development representative meet to establish Developmental Activities Program and to devise an action plan for the attainment of the potential developmental goals. Step No. 4 End of Second Month The Interim Principal prepares annual goals to include at least two developmental (professional growth) goals and two organizational goals. He/she submits copy to Area Superintendent and Human Resource Development representative. These goals will be a part of the district performance appraisal procedure. The Interim Principal meets with the peer principals to provide them with an orientation to the school, its programs, etc. Step No. 5 Third Month The Interim Principal experiences a two hour "shadowing activity" by each peer principal on separate dates. Peer principals record observations which will be shared at the initial meeting of the supervisory team to be scheduled by the end of the third month. The Interim Principal also may schedule time to shadow each of the peer principals prior to their shadowing visit. Shadowing experiences may occur throughout the interim principal program. Step No. 6 End of Third Month The Interim Principal schedules the initial meeting of supervisory team and provides agenda. First half of the meeting should include a status report of activities/progress made on each of the organizational and developmental goals. Second half of agenda will involve support team and Interim Principal in any additional planning that might be appropriate. The peer principals also discuss observations from their "shadowing" experience. **Additional meetings of the supervisory/support team may be scheduled on a group or individual member basis as needed. Step No. 7 End of Fifth Month The Interim Principal meets with the peer principals to review goals and strategies and to seek their input concerning goal/strategy adjustment and/or revision. Step No. 8 End of Eighth Month The Interim Principal schedules a second team meeting. The purpose is to prepare for major activities in function/task areas as are appropriate to the calendar. Plans and concerns are shared. Team members provide input and assistance. Step No. 9 Eleventh Month The Interim Principal schedules the final meeting of supervisory team and provides agenda. The purpose of the meeting is to review the results obtained by the Interim Principal in reference to his/her goals and participation in DAP activities and to reach a consensus among team members concerning a recommendation for Level II certification. Step No. 10 Eleventh Month The Area Superintendent and Human Resource Development representative verify portfolio. The Area Superintendent completes summary appraisal forms (if necessary) and makes the appropriate recommendation to the superintendent related to Level II certification. In 1996, Petitioner was appointed by Dr. John Stewart, who was then Superintendent of the Polk County Schools, to participate in the Interim Principal Program. Petitioner was assigned to the Haines City High School as principal for the 1996-97 school year, and remained there as principal through the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner had not participated in the Principal Intern Program. Shortly after being appointed as Interim Principal, Petitioner, in consultation with his area superintendent, Carolyn Baldwin, selected Sharon Knowles and David Lewis as his peer principals, who together with Carolyn Baldwin and the Human Resource Development representative, William P. Strouse, was the Team for the Petitioner's Interim Principal Program. As required by the Interim Principal Program, William Spouse conducted the orientation program for all new interim principals for the Polk County School District on September 30, 1996. The Interim Principal Program is driven by the interim principal who has the obligation of organizing the activities and scheduling of the activities and meetings. Petitioner did not schedule any activities or meetings in his Interim Principal Program during the Fall of 1996. In December 1996, Carolyn Baldwin directed David Lewis to set up an appointment with Petitioner for an orientation with Petitioner at Haines City High School The orientation occurred in January 1997. The orientation consisted of a walk around the campus of Haines City High School and a discussion that focused on the concern for the number of uncertified personnel on the staff at that time and the need for improving student achievement. On April 3, 1997, prior to any Team meeting, Petitioner was provided a copy of the Administrative Performance Appraisal (Appraisal) completed by Carolyn Baldwin, Area Superintendent. The categories provided in the Appraisal only provided for "Above Expectations," "At Expectations," and "Below Expectations." Although Ms. Baldwin had some reservations, she, in fairness to Petitioner, rated him "at expectation" in all 19 of the Performance Expectations listed in the Appraisal. To the Performance Expectation "Commitment to School Mission" Ms. Baldwin added the comment "real sense of commitment to Haines City High School." To the Performance Expectation "Managing Interaction" Ms. Baldwin added the comment "develop a system for prompt attention to parents with problems." The Appraisal also included three individual or unit goals stated by Petitioner as goals to be accomplished. Ms. Baldwin rated Petitioner "at expectations" on all of Petitioner's stated goals. After Petitioner's stated goal, "Enhance and improve the overall appearance and function of the school - this 1st impression for the community, parents, staff and students should be one to be proud of, appealing, and reflective of the academic attitude of the school," Ms. Baldwin added the comment "school climate enhanced significantly in this area, good public relations." After the meeting with David Lewis, there was no further formal activity in Petitioner's Interim Principal Program until April 1997. On April 16, 1997, the Team met with Petitioner. During this meeting, the Team reviewed Petitioner's program and found that there were no interim program professional development goals, no development activities, no complete developmental monthly activities plans, and no peer shadowing had taken place. Also at the April 16, 1997, meeting, Petitioner was advised that it was unlikely that Team would recommend him for certification under the Interim Principal Program. Petitioner proceeded to work on the deficiencies expressed by the Team at the April 16, 1997, meeting. After the April 16, 1997, meeting, the Team expressed concern related to Petitioner's complacency with respect to the Interim Principal Program and Petitioner's level of completion up to that point. It was suggested, and agreed to by the Team, that Knowles, Lewis, and Baldwin would complete an analysis of their interactions with Petitioner related to the Florida Principals Competencies. During April and May 1997, Petitioner conducted shadowing activities and peer principal visits with Lewis and Knowles. On June 11, 1997, Carolyn Baldwin met with Petitioner and discussed her concerns as well as Petitioner's concerns regarding Petitioner's activities, job performance as Principal of Haines City High School, and his progress in the Program. The meeting apparently ended on a positive note. On June 13, 1997, Petitioner conducted another shadowing at the Haines City High School. In June 1997, the Team met to determine Petitioner's areas of need and development. Petitioner was neither invited nor did he attend this meeting. In June 1997, Strouse circulated a list of the 19 Florida School Principal Competencies among the Team members and requested that each Team member identify those areas in which Petitioner had developmental needs. Strouse took the areas in which all members of the Team specified that Petitioner had developmental needs and developed a program for Petitioner to address those needs. This program was titled Florida Principal Competencies -- Analysis of Developmental Needs for Lonnie Smith, Interim Principal Haines City High School (Plan). There was no team meeting with Petitioner or with the team as a whole to discuss the outcome of the survey, the compilation of the results, or to jointly draft the Plan. Petitioner was not aware of, nor did he have knowledge of, the Plan prior to the August 14, 1997, meeting with Superintendent Reynolds. The Plan was presented to Petitioner at the August 14, 1997, meeting with Superintendent Reynolds, Area Superintendent Baldwin, William Strouse, and Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Denny Dunn. Petitioner was advised at this meeting that his Interim Principal Program would be extended a year. The Plan dated August 1997, provides as follows: CLUSTER CONSTANCY OF PURPOSE COMPETENCIES COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION is a pledge to develop and act in accordance with the shared vision, mission and values of the school. The principal needs to exhibit COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION in which he: *personally holds a set of values which are in harmony with the vision and mission of the school; e.g., respect and caring for each individual, belief that everyone can succeed, etc. *is purposeful about linking the school's mission to expected behavior *identifies, models and reinforces behavior which is congruent with the mission and goals of the schools CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION is caring about the impressions created by self, the students, the faculty, the staff, and parents, and how these are communicated both inside and outside the school. The principal needs to demonstrate a greater CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION in which he: *Maintains a safe, orderly and clean school and expects everyone to assume their responsibility for doing so *builds a school culture that provides the best possible teaching/learning environment *controls the flow of negative information. ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY is an awareness of the effects of one's behavior and decisions on all stakeholders both inside and outside the organization. The principal needs to demonstrate ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY by documenting that he: *considers the overall consequences to the school's culture before initiating changes *keeps individuals, both inside and outside the school, informed when data are relevant to them *considers the position, feelings and/or perspectives of other parts of the organization when planning, deciding and organizing *develops and maintains a school climate conductive to learning *is open to discussion and change *builds coalitions and seeks, secures and recognizes allies CLUSTER: PROACTIVE ORIENTATION COMPETENCIES PROACTIVE ORIENTATION PROACTIVE ORIENTATION is the inclination and readiness to initiate activity and take responsibility for leading and enabling others to improve the circumstances being faced or anticipated. The principal must demonstrate a more PROACTIVE ORIENTATION in which he: *provides support for teachers, staff and parents as they take initiative for school improvement CLUSTER: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT COMPETENCIES ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION is having to do things better than before by setting goals that encourage self and others to reach higher standards. The principal give more attention to ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION in which he: *shows appreciation for individual and group efforts and accomplishments *identifies discrepancies between goals and the current status in order to stimulate achievement *uses criteria for effective schools to assess the status of the school as one basis for school improvement. DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION is holding high and positive expectations for the growth and development of all stakeholders through modeling self-development coaching and providing learning opportunities. A principal needs to enhance his DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION in which he: *builds a school, community and culture that supports learning and growth for everyone including self *participates in professional developmental activities as a learner. CLUSTER: COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS SELF PRESENTATION IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS is influencing and having an effect upon the school stakeholders by a variety of means...e.g., persuasive arguments, setting an example or using expertise. The principal needs to demonstrate IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS in which he: *persists until ideas, beliefs and goals are clear to all stakeholders *uses personal presence to influence others, maintains visibility and accessibility. SELF PRESENTATION is the ability to clearly present one's ideas to others in an open, informative and non-evaluative manner The principal must enhance his skills of SELF PRESENTATION in which he: *checks to see that messages are received, and persist until ideas, beliefs and goals seem to be understood *models effective interpersonal communication skills *uses effective listening skills before responding to questions by others. CLUSTER: FACILITATION COMPETENCIES MANAGING INTERACTION TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY MANAGING INTERACTION is getting others to work together effectively though the use of group process and facilitator skills. A principal needs to improve his skills of MANAGING INTERACTION when in which he: *facilitates team and group membership *moderates group discussions and encourages consensus *facilitates interpersonal and intergroup communication *creates a non judgmental atmosphere in order to stimulate open communication personally *promotes collegial behavior. TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY is the ability to adapt one's interaction and behavior to meet the situation. The principal needs to develop skills of TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY in which he: *adopts various roles of listener, facilitator, and confronter as needed *understands how own behavior affects others and makes appropriate adjustments. INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY is the ability to discover, understand, verbalize accurately and respond empathetically to the perspectives, thoughts, ideas and feelings of others. The principal must demonstrate greater INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY in which he: *encourages others to describe their perceptions, thoughts, feelings and perspectives *listens attentively and accurately describe others' behavior, expressed ideas, feelings, and perspectives CLUSTER: CRITICAL THINKING COMPETENCIES INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS CONCEPT FORMATION CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS is the gathering and analysis of data from multiple sources before arriving at an understanding of an event or problem. The principal needs to display an enhanced competence in INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS in which he: *creates and manages a systemic informational gathering process among the various stakeholders of the school community *keeps up-to-date, striving to gather new information from research and other sources which can then be used by the school CONCEPT FORMATION is the ability to see patterns and relationships and form concepts, hypotheses and ideas from the information. The principal must evidence CONCEPT FORMATION when he: *processes data logically and intuitively to discover and/or create meaning *presses self and others to define and understand issues so that problem solving techniques can be applied *practices reflective thinking CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY is the ability to use alternative or multiple concepts or perspectives when solving a problem or making a decision. The principal must demonstrate CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY in which he: *views the situation being faced and the events leading up to it from multiple perspectives *values divergent thinking and considers conflicting or differing views in the process of identifying options for actions *appreciates different perspectives, and ensures that alternative courses of action and their consequences are considered before decisions are made *makes decisions based upon an analysis of options *demonstrates contingency planning skills. CLUSTER: DECISION-MAKING COMPETENCIES DECISIVENESS DECISIVENESS is the readiness and confidence to make or share decisions in a timely manner, using appropriate levels of involvement so that actions may be taken and commitments made by self and others. The principal needs to exhibit greater DECISIVENESS in which he: *recognizes the importance of sharing decisions and decision-making with stakeholders as integral part of organizational learning and development *recognizes that decisions are made at several levels by different people *faces personnel problems as they occur, provides feedback on performance, and makes difficult personnel decisions when necessary *acts quickly to stop possible breaches of safety and/or interruption in operations in discipline situations *decides to let others decide. CLUSTER: MANAGERIAL COMPETENCIES ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY DELEGATION MANAGEMENT CONTROL ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY is the "know-how" (knowledge and skill) to design, plan and organize activities to achieve goals. The principal must improve his ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY in which he: *develops action plans for goal achievement in collaboration with the school improvement team *recruits teachers whose goals align with the mission and goals of the school community DELEGATION is entrusting of jobs to be done, beyond routine assignments, to others, giving them authority and responsibility for accomplishment. The principal must improve his DELEGATION COMPETENCE in which he: *assesses the expertise of self and others and, whenever possible considers the developmental needs and aspirations of others in relation to the jobs and tasks to be assigned *seeks outside help and assistance for tasks or jobs for which time and talents are not available within the school *gains understanding and acceptance for delegated tasks *specifies responsibility and authority for delegated tasks MANAGEMENT CONTROL is the establishment of systematic processes to receive and provide feedback about the progress of work being done. The principal must improve his skills of MANAGEMENT CONTROL in which he: *walks around campus purposefully to check the status of events *holds frequent conferences with staff about student progress *asks for feedback to see how well self is doing *reconsiders, at least annually, the shared vision of the school, its mission and the stated goals *schedules follow-up for all delegated and assigned activities. RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN FOR THE NEEDS RELATED TO THE FLORIDA PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SUPPORT TEAM Lonnie Smith, Interim Principal, Haines City Senior High, will implement the following activities as a way to document successful achievement of the Florida Principal Competency criteria for certification as a School Principal: Develop and maintain a portfolio which contains artifacts related to each of the indicators (as appropriate) for the Florida Principal Competencies as identified by the support team in July of 1997. Provide written behavioral examples for specific competency indicators for which artifact documentation is inappropriate. Provide oral behavioral examples in an interview setting to his supervisor related to specific competency indicators as identified in the summary of developmental needs. Read the Polk County School Board Policy Book and consult with his supervisor and/or other appropriate district level resource people when specific policy questions arise. Participate in Leadership Academy training activities as follows: Facilitative Leadership Leadership Self-Assessment Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People Schedule, plan, and facilitate at least four (4) meetings of the Interim Principal Support Team to provide status reports concerning the developmental needs as identified and action plan accomplishments. One meeting should be scheduled in each of the following months: October, 1997; January, 1998; March, 1998; June 1998. Meet all expectations/processes as outlined in the performance appraisal procedures for school-based administrators. Participate in other training as might be suggested by the Assistant Area Superintendent and where time and content are appropriate. Secure and administer the "School Climate Quality Survey" from Anchin Center, USF (813- 974-5959). Develop an action plan to address any areas of need as identified by the survey results. Participate in additional shadowing experiences with each peer principal at least twice during the 1997-1998 school year. Limit military leave time to a minimum so as to concentrate on successful demonstration of all duties comprehensive of the principalship. Despite several objections to the Plan, including the requirement to reduce his military obligation, Petitioner accepted the Plan and proceeded to work on the 11-point recommended action set out in the Plan. Petitioner did not at this time, or at any previous time, advise the Team that he was of the opinion that he had successfully completed the Program. In accordance with the recommended action set out in the Plan Petitioner: developed and maintained a portfolio; provided written behavioral examples for specific competency indicators for which artifact documentation is inappropriate; provided his Team and supervisor with oral behavioral examples; read the Polk County School Board Policy Book and consulted with his supervisor or other appropriate district level resource personnel when specific policy questions would arise; participated in the leadership academy training activities and completed the three courses outlined in the recommended action set out in the Plan; d scheduled, planned, and facilitated at least three meetings of the Interim Principal Support Team. A fourth meeting of the Interim Principal Support was scheduled and planned by Petitioner but did not occur due to the Program being terminated prematurely in March 1998; participated in other training that was suggested by Area Superintendent Carolyn Baldwin, went to training titled Building a Team, and also went to training provided by the Board and Ms. Baldwin in particular. secured and administered the "School Climate Quality Survey" and, pursued furthering shadowing with the two peer principals. On January 26, 1998, the Team met to review Petitioner's progress, The Team member expressed concern regarding Petitioner's leadership in the instructional/academic programs at Haines City High School, and the need for an academic plan for the school was discussed. On March 5, 1998, the Team met to review Petitioner's progress on the Plan and the Program. The Team's concern regarding the school's academic plan was again discussed. Petitioner was requested to prepare a written description of a plan for improving the school's academic and instructional performance. Petitioner subsequently submitted such a plan to the Team members. Each of the Team members found shortcomings in Petitioner's academic plan. Petitioner's plan: (a) did not address what Petitioner had been asked to address by the Team; (b) lacked substance; (c) lacked quality; and (c) was difficult to understand. On March 16, 1998, the Team met without Petitioner to discuss his progress with the Plan and Program. Petitioner was not present at this meeting due some minor surgery. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to postpone the meeting but decided to let the Team meet without him. However, Petitioner had submitted material to the Team regarding the Plan. After reviewing the material submitted by Petitioner (which apparently included Petitioner's portfolio), the Team, individually and collectively, concluded that Petitioner had not successfully completed the Program in that he had failed to demonstrate satisfactory performance of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies. At this meeting the Team reached a consensus that the Team could not recommend Petitioner for certification as a principal. A memorandum was prepared advising Superintendent Reynolds that the Team was recommending that Petitioner should not receive certification as a principal. Additionally, the memorandum advised Superintendent Reynolds that although Petitioner had made some improvements there had not been a demonstration of performance whereby the Team could recommend School Principal Certification for Petitioner. The Team also agreed at the March 16, 1998, meeting that since Petitioner's evaluation was an integral part of the certification program that Ms. Baldwin, as Petitioner's supervisor, would complete Petitioner's evaluation. On March 17, 1998, Ms. Baldwin prepared Petitioner's Principal Performance Summary Assessment and rated Petitioner "Ineffective" in the following Clusters of Florida Principal Competencies: Proactive Orientation with the following comments: has been proactive in relationship to the physical facility and grounds needs of Haines City High School. lacks proactive orientation in relationship to school's academic performance. discipline issues often become complaint status. Parents express concern about the accessibility of the principal for problem resolution and frequently report referral to the staff persons when the [sic] specifically request to speak with the school principal. Some parents say they do not know who the principal is. lack of participation in decision making regarding emergency plans for school double session (December 1997). decisiveness in relation to safety issues questionable, i.e. bomb threat incident and delay of school evacuation as documented by investigation of Mr. Fred Murphy, Director of Disaster Preparedness; also lack of a clear plan even after numerous bomb threats (which staff members were to search which parts of the building) staff report hesitancy in interaction in planning meetings (guidance staff, specifically) difficulty in simple decision making and follow through (i.e., FBLA supplements, principal awarded 2 available supplements at 100% and 2 more at 33 1/3% with conflicting paperwork on file at the county level.) complaints re: cheerleaders coaching and advertisement of supplemental positions as per collective bargaining agreement affecting basic program start up timeliness and county requirements Sensitivity does not seem to have recognition of consequences of his actions in the larger organization (i.e., letting teachers go home during duty day perceived as abdication of responsibility) development of team approach weak considering 2 years to accomplish (relationships with other administrators disjointed and awkward) tends to isolate himself and participate in peripheral ways only (observed in East Area principal's meetings as well as reported by school staff) lack of networking with peer principal's [sic]; evidences reluctance to use peer principals as resources Analysis weakness in interpreting school's academic data. Uses large minority population and high mobility rate as reasons for school underachievement no observation in concept through conversation or practice of elements of concept formation or conceptual flexibility at a proficient level Leadership Managing interaction weak in group problem solving high number of parent complaints about interaction with school personnel (principal and others) as compared to other area high schools. Four times the number of complaints requiring intervention compared to the next highest number from another high school (48:12 ratio). One other area high school has only 3 complaint calls Work Standards have not observed level of developmental orientation expected of a principal performing effectively Written Communication some ambiguity in written communication, some ideas not clearly communicated (i.e., materials provided to team for interim principal program) Sharon Knowles concluded that Petitioner had failed to adequately perform in the competency of proactive orientation which includes decision-making, improving the school, and decisiveness. Knowles cited specific examples such as Petitioner's decision to delay evacuating the school upon being advised of a bomb threat and his decision to attend a scholarship competition at another school during the time that a law enforcement officer had been killed in the community and his school was in a lock-down. To Knowles this indicated a lack of decisiveness. Also, Knowles concluded that Petitioner's failure to move the Program along in the beginning indicated a lack of responsibility on the part of Petitioner. David Lewis concluded that Petitioner had failed to adequately perform in the competency of proactive orientation. Lewis cited specific examples such as Petitioner's delay in responding to a bomb threat and his lack of involvement in taking the leadership role in diffusing the situation. Lewis cited Petitioner's lack of leadership in responding to a tornado disaster. Lewis cited Petitioner's failure to return to his school during a lock-down of the school after the shooting death of a law enforcement officer in the neighborhood. Lewis also concluded that Petitioner had failed to perform in the cluster of Critical Thinking (Information Search and Analysis, Concept Formation, and Conceptual Flexibility). As a specific example, Lewis cited Petitioner's inability to properly prepare and present an academic and instructional plan for Haines City High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Petitioner did not successfully complete the necessary requirements for the principal certification under the Interim Principal Program and, is further recommended that Petitioner be denied principal certification under that program. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Grizzard, II, Esquire Post Office Box 992 115 Trader's Alley Lakeland, Florida 33802-0992 Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell and Dunlap LLP Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Mr. Glenn Reynolds Superintendent of Schools Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-0391 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the employment of Petitioner, Cornelius B. Frankliln, was improperly terminated by Respondent, The School Board of Seminole County, in the summer of 1988.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, C.B. Franklin, began service with the School Board of Seminole County in the position of teacher in the 1951-52 academic year. In 1955, Petitioner was awarded a continuing contract of employment by Respondent in the position of teacher. Said continuing contract was in effect at all times relevant hereto. Petitioner was last employed by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, as an Assistant Principal II at Sanford Middle School on an annual contract of employment, which terminated of June 10, 1989. During his employment at Sanford Middle School as an assistant principal from 1980 through 1988, Petitioner received satisfactory annual evaluations. In March, 1988, Owen McCarron, Assistant Superintendent, applied a "staffing formula" for each school in Seminole County. The staffing formula is not a school board rule but is a formula that the school board approves based upon student population to determine the number of teachers, secretaries, assistant principals, and others needed at each specific school. Mr. McCarron is responsible for the application of the formula. The application of the formula is not submitted to the school board for approval. Mr. McCarron made a mistake in the preparation of the staffing formula for 1988/89. The mistake made was that the number of assistant principals for Sanford Middle School would be reduced from two to one. Having been informed of a reduction, Dan Pelham, Principal, Sanford Middle School, determined that he would have to choose among the Assistant Principal II's employed and decided not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner. Owen McCarron discovered the mistake and notified Dan Pelham, sometime in late March, 1989. However, Dan Pelham chose not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner but rather to advertise the position as being vacant. When Mr. Pelham was notified the position was reinstated he considered it to be an "opportunity" to consider alternative persons for the position. Mr. Pelham's decision was based on Petitioner's performance as reflected by his annual evaluations and faculty input. Mr. Pelham held a conference with Petitioner on April 8, 1988, and Petitioner was advised that his contract as an assistant principal at Sanford Middle School would not be renewed for the school year 1988-89, because the School Board had reduced the number of assistant principal positions at Sanford Middle School from two (2) positions to one (1). Petitioner was offered a teaching position, under his continuing contract status, at Sanford Middle School as a peer counselor. The Respondent did not act to approve the reduction in positions, nor was the Respondent notified that Petitioner was not being recommended for reemployment. The School Board does not have a rule to govern how the decision is to be made upon a reduction in staff. At the time of the hearing and at all relevant times prior thereto, Petitioner held a valid Florida Department of Education certification in the teaching fields of health education, physical education and supervision and administration. On or about June 9, 1989, one day prior to the expiration of Petitioner's contract as Assistant Principal II, the Petitioner met with Dan Pelham and John Reichert, Director of Personnel. At that time, Petitioner was again advised by Mr. Pelham that he had not changed his decision not to renew Petitioner as an assistant principal, even though he had been advised that the position had been restored. The Petitioner was advised that he could apply for the vacant Assistant Principal II position but he would have to submit an application and a resume. The Petitioner responded that Dan Pelham was well aware of his qualifications, and that a copy of his resume was on file. At that time, Mr. Pelham offered Petitioner the peer counselor position, but salary was not discussed. Petitioner was given copies of documents containing the job information for the position of peer counselor. The position had not previously existed and had not been advertised. Petitioner was reassured that he had employment with the School Board as a teacher under his continuing contract status. At the same meeting, Mr. Reichert advised Petitioner to accept the teaching position, and at the same time apply for the assistant principal vacancy at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner applied for state retirement on June 27, 1988, and his retirement was accepted by the School Board of Seminole County thereafter, on July 13, 1988. Prior to the time Petitioner submitted his application for retirement, he was verbally offered a teaching position under his continuing contract status for the 1988-89 school year at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner is an experienced school administrator, holds a master's degree in [school] administration and supervision from Rollins College, in Winter Park, Florida. As a component of his master's degree requirement he had instruction in school law. Petitioner was aware that his employment as an assistant principal was on the basis of an annual contract of employment and that the position was not entitled to continuing contract status. Petitioner did not apply for the position of Assistant Principal II (secondary) at Sanford Middle School, after it was declared vacant and advertised (in the Spring of 1988), even though he was told that he would be considered for reappointment to the position if he did. Petitioner was aware that if he accepted the offered position of peer counselor his pay would resume in the Fall of 1988, along with all of the other teachers, and that he would be paid at the top of the teaching salary scale on the basis of his thirty (30) plus years of service. Petitioner did not respond, verbally or in writing, to the offered position of peer counselor subsequent to its offer and prior to his retirement. Mr. L. David Pelham, the principal of Sanford Middle School, was not obligated to reappoint Petitioner to the position of assistant principal, after June 10, 1988. However, Petitioner was entiled to a performance assessment prior to that date. Mr. Pelham recognized that Petitioner held continuing contract status and was entitled to be placed in a teaching position at Sanford Middle School for the 1988-89 school year and thereafter. Petitioner never discussed his decision to retire with Mr. Reichert or Mr. Pelham. Neither person had any communications with Petitioner after the June 9, 1988 meeting. Petitioner's annual contract of employment clearly put him on notice that neither he nor the school board owed the other any further contractual obligation after June 9, 1988 and that he had no expectancy of employment as an assistant principal after June 10, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the affirmative relief sought by the Petitioner should be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that each party should bear their own costs and attorneys fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2007 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1 (1st three sentences), 2, 3, 4 (1st sentence), 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 (except the last 2 sentences) - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 4 (2d sentence), 9,12 - Rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11 (except sentence 2)-Rejected as subservient. Respondents Findings of Fact Paragraph 1 through 26 - Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Hughes Superintendent of Schools c/o Seminole County School Board 1211 Melonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, Colbert, Whigham & Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32772-1330 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Public Employer filed a petition for determination of managerial and confidential employees with PERC on February 21, 1975. The job positions for which managerial or confidential status is requested, and the persons who occupy the positions are set out in the petition. The petition was presented to the Public Employee Relations Commission on May 8, 1975. The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated August 1, 1975. The Public Employer recognized the MCEA as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel employed by the Public Employer prior to the instant petition being filed. A contract between the Public Employer and MCEA was signed on August 26, 1975, and was received in evidence at the hearing as Public Employer's Exhibit 5. The Public Employer's evidence respecting the responsibilities, duties, and day-to-day activities of the persons who occupy the positions for which managerial or confidential status is being sought was received primarily in the form of job descriptions, and a chart showing the functions of each position which justify managerial or confidential status as perceived by the Public Employer. The job descriptions were received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 2. The chart was received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 3. The job descriptions accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day- to-day activities of each position. If the persons who occupy the positions are not performing their duties in accordance with the descriptions, then they are performing their duties improperly. It is likely that if the jobs were being performed contrary to the descriptions, this fact would be known to the Superintendent. The positions for which managerial or confidential status is being sought are described in Public Employer's Exhibit 2 beginning at the following indicated page: the Assistant Superintendent for Service at page 27, the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction at page 5, the Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs at page 32, the Director of Personnel at page 24, the Director of Instructional Support and People Personnel Services at page 20, the Director of Adult Education at page 17, the Director of Exceptional Child and Special Services at page 13, the Director of Federal Programs at page 22, the Director of Career Education at page 16, the Director of Secondary Education at page 7, the Director of Elementary Education at page 9, the Director of Vocational Education at page 15, the Director of Community Manpower Programs at page 18, the Director of Planning and Research at page 14, the Maintenance Supervisor at page 28, the Transportation Supervisor at page 29, the Supervisor of Custodial Services at page 30, the Food Service Supervisor at page 34, the High School Principal at page 8a, the Middle School Principals at page 8f, the Elementary School Principals at page 11, the Assistant High School Principals at page 8c, the Assistant Middle School Principals at page 8h, the High School Department Heads at page 8d, the Curriculum Coordinators at page 8i and 12a, the Helping Teacher at page 12c. The references in the chart which was received as Public Employer's Exhibit 3 are to paragraphs in the job descriptions set out in Public Employer's Exhibit 2. The Public Employer is seeking to implement what was described at the hearing as a "team management system" in order to accomplish management a baser level. Under this system Principals, Assistant Principals, and department Heads would take on increased management functions. Principals are expected to initiate action respecting policy changes which they consider appropriate. The School Board, the Public Employer's legislative body, is ultimately responsible for adopting policy. The School Board typically adopts policies based upon the recommendations of the elected Superintendent, the Public Employer's chief executive officer. The Principal's recommendations respecting policy, especially policy which would be applicable primarily in the Principal's school are given great weight. One recent policy making decision in which a principal played a part involved parking at Martin County High school. The school Principal advised the superintendent of a need for a change in rules and regulations respecting parking. The principal went before the Board to describe the problem, and the Board directed the Principal and the Assistant Superintendent for Service to write a new policy for the Board's consideration. This policy was formulated primarily by the school Principal and was presented to the superintendent. The superintendent presented the policy to the School Board and recommended its adoption. The School Board adopted the policy without amendment. There are ten Principals employed by the Public Employer. There are one High School Principal, three Middle School Principals, and six Elementary School Principals. The High School Principal, one Middle School Principal and one Elementary School Principal were appointed by the Public Employer to the team which negotiated a contract with the MCEA. Under the agreement that has been signed by the Public Employer and by the MCEA, the Principal is charged with administering the agreement within his or her school. The Principal takes on a primary responsibility in the grievance procedure established in the agreement. The Principal is primarily responsible for making determinations respecting hiring and firing of personnel employed at his or her school. The Principal does not have the absolute authority to hire or fire personnel. The Principal makes recommendations to the superintendent, who in turn makes recommendations to the School Board. The School Board has the ultimate authority. In Martin County the Principals' recommendations respecting hiring and firing are followed, possibly without exception. The Principal is responsible for evaluating the personnel employed at his or her school. The evaluation is done on a form that has been adopted by the School Board. The evaluation goes into the employee's personnel file, and becomes a part of the employee's permanent employment record. The Public Employer's system for formulating and administering its budget is somewhat decentralized. Money is budgeted to a school based on the number of students. The school budget, which does not include expenditures for salaries or capital improvements, is prepared by the Principal. The Principal's budget is for all school supplies including textbooks. The central administration reviews the Principal's budget and would have authority to change items that were out of line. The budget ultimately adopted by the School Board actually reflects ten separate school budgets. The Principal has no control over the amount of money that will be budgeted to his or her school, but the Principal does have considerable latitude in setting the budget priorities for his or her school. Once the budget is adopted, the Principal has the authority to make expenditures based upon the budget. The Principal signs all purchase requisitions emanating from his or her school. The duties of Assistant Principals vary among the schools in Martin County, depending in part upon the responsibilities which are delegated by the Principal to the Assistant Principal. Virtually any of the Principal's responsibilities can be delegated by the Principal to the Assistant Principal, although ultimate responsibility would remain with the Principal. Generally Assistant Principals are charged with establishing schedules, and assigning teachers. The witness Clara Bevis Fulton is presently Principal at Martin County High School. She was previously Assistant Principal. As Assistant Principal she would hold initial interviews with job applicants. If the applicant appeared satisfactory she would call in the Department Head in the area in which the applicant works and would check the applicant's references. She would evaluate the teachers based on information given to her by Department Heads, and based upon her own classroom visits. She made recommendations to the Principal respecting hiring and firing. The Principal's budget responsibilities were handled by Mrs. Fulton while she was Assistant Principal at Martin County High School. There are six Department Heads employed by the Public Employer. All of the Department heads work at Martin County High School. The Department Heads typically spend approximately 4/5 of their time as classroom teachers, and the remaining time fulfilling administrative duties. The Director of Guidance, who is classified as a Department Head, spends more than half of his time on administrative duties. Department Heads are paid on a management pay scale rather than on a teacher's pay scale. The opinions of the Department Heads respecting new employees and old employees are solicited by the Principal or Assistant Principals. The Department Heads give considerable input into teacher evaluations. Department Heads serve as the first step in the grievance procedure adopted in the collective bargaining contract that has been signed by the Public Employer and by the MCEA. The School Superintendent refers to Department Heads as the front line of management. The Principal or Assistant Principals seek information from the Department Heads respecting the budgetary needs of their department. This information would primarily amount to an explanation of the coming year's needs in relation to the past year. This budget information relates to supplies and textbooks, not to salaries. The primary function of Curriculum Coordinators is to plan and administer a school's curriculum. The Curriculum Coordinator plays a role in evaluating teachers by forwarding information to the Principal or Assistant Principals. Information is sought from the curriculum Coordinators respecting budgetary needs, especially from the perspective of the priority of conflicting needs. The Curriculum Coordinator has no classroom duties. ENTERED this 16 day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: All parties of record
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Barbara Carroll, has been employed by the Holmes County District School Board as lunchroom manager at Prosperity Elementary School for more than six years. On June 15, 1981, the superintendent of the Holmes County School District formally recommended to the school board that the Petitioner be re-employed for the 1981-82 school year in the same position. On July 20, 1981, the school board rejected the superintendent's nomination on the basis of advice from the then principal of Prosperity Elementary School that the Petitioner was frequently tardy or absent, left work early, spent time away from her work area, was insubordinate and openly defiant to the school principal, and because of threats made by the Petitioner's husband when the principal reprimanded her near the end of the 1981 school year. By letter dated July 29, 1981, the Petitioner was notified of the school board's rejection of the superintendent's nomination and the rationale. Prior to his nomination, the superintendent visited the school where the Petitioner managed the lunchroom, and ate there in the lunchroom. He recommended her because his review of the school records and personnel file, together with his knowledge of the Petitioner and her reputation, for four years, convinced him that she is qualified to perform the duties required of the position. He was aware of the complaints that had been made about the Petitioner, but after he investigated, he still judged her to be the best person for the job. The Petitioner's character is good and she has done a fine job in the position over the years. The Petitioner's qualifications to manage the lunchroom were further supported by the present school principal, and two former principals while the Petitioner worked there. These witnesses corroborated the testimony of the superintendent. The Petitioner was a good manager, and she operated the lunchroom in a satisfactory manner throughout the time she was employed. She was never defiant or disobedient, and she was always punctual. The Petitioner testified in her own behalf and explained that she never intended to be insubordinate or defiant of the principal's authority. She did question his policies relating to lunchroom reports and attendance records, and although she disagreed with the principal, she always followed his instructions. The Petitioner notified the principal when she was going to be absent except on one occasion when a family member died. Even then she arranged for a substitute to operate the lunchroom. Another time the Petitioner left school early to drive a teacher to the hospital, without advising the principal, but this situation arose suddenly and happened after lunch time. The operation of the lunchroom was never interrupted. When the complaining principal came to Prosperity School, he found the Petitioner to be doing a good job managing the lunchroom. Throughout the years he remained principal the Petitioner never performed her job improperly. The lunchroom was always in operation, and the Petitioner had the lunchroom covered when she was not there. With remarkable candor, the principal described the Petitioner as a good employee, and added that perhaps she could work better with another principal. This person is not now principal of Prosperity School, There was a personality conflict between the Petitioner and the principal, especially during the 1980-81 school year. The principal had a right to expect that employees under his supervision comply with his instructions and implement his policies without complaints or grumbling, and particularly without insubordination. However, there was not sufficient evidence presented on behalf of the school board to support a finding that the actions of the Petitioner amounted to defiance of the principal's authority, or insubordination, or were more than fair comment by the Petitioner. The weight of the credible evidence supports a finding that the school board's rejection of the superintendent's nomination of the Petitioner as lunchroom manager at Prosperity School was without just cause.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Barbara Carroll, be reinstated as lunchroom manager at Prosperity Elementary School in Holmes County, Florida, effective the beginning of the midterm of school year 1981-82. An it is further RECOMMENDED that the Holmes County District School Board compensate the Petitioner, Barbara Carroll, for the period from the beginning of the 1981-82 school year to the date of her reinstatement. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 11th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 11th day of January, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bonnie K. Roberts, Esquire Post Office Box 667 Bonifay, Florida 32425
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent from employment with the Brevard County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Brevard County, Florida. This includes the power to discipline employees, such as teachers. § 4, Article IX, Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.42(5), 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.33, Fla. Stat.1 Respondent is a classroom teacher, and as such, the terms and conditions of her employment are governed by the collective agreement between the School Board and The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098. Respondent has a Bachelor’s degree in exceptional education. On or about November 9, 2006, Respondent, pursuant to an annual contract, was hired by the School Board to provide services as a classroom teacher. Beginning in the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent continued her employment with the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. During all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent taught at Hoover Middle School, which is under the jurisdiction of the School Board. At the commencement of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent taught exceptional education (ESE) students in a self-contained, supported-level class. At approximately the midway point of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent began teaching a resource math class which was comprised entirely of ESE students. Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, and continuing through the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent taught one resource math class for a single class-period of the day, and she co-taught, or “pushed-in,” for the other five instructional class periods. In both settings, Respondent taught math to ESE students. By correspondence dated March 26, 2019, Superintendent Mullins advised Respondent of the following: Pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.34, you are being recommended for termination of your Professional Services Contract due to unsatisfactory 1 All subsequent references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2018 codification, unless otherwise indicated. Performance …. The actions leading to this recommendation are as follows: On October 29, 2018, you were provided a 90-day notice advising of performance-related concerns based upon three years of unsatisfactory annual evaluations. Several performance review meetings were held with you, your union representative, and your school Principal to discuss your progress. A review of your past evaluations indicates several attempts at corrective activities through the use of District Peer Mentors and Resource Teachers. After the completion of the 90-day plan, adequate progress was not obtained and is grounds to sever the Professional Services Contract. The School Board uses an “Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System” (IPPAS) as a guide when evaluating a teacher’s performance. According to the IPPAS manual, classroom teachers are evaluated on a rubric which consists of five dimensions. The first dimension focuses on “instructional design and lesson planning.” The second dimension focuses on the “learning environment” created and fostered by the teacher. The third dimension focuses on “instructional delivery and facilitation.” The fourth dimension focuses on “assessment,” and the fifth dimension focuses on a teacher’s “professional responsibility and ethical conduct.” IPPAS is approved annually by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), and the School Board meets regularly with The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098, to address any issues concerning the evaluation process. Teachers and evaluators receive yearly training, which covers the various components of the evaluation process. Pursuant to IPPAS, and related statutory provisions, classroom teachers are evaluated annually. The overall score given to a teacher on the annual evaluation is determined by how a teacher scores in the areas of “Professional Practices Based on Florida’s Educator Accomplished Practices (Professional Practices),” and “Individual Accountability for Student Academic Performance Based on Identified Assessments (Student Performance).” The Professional Practices category accounts for 67 percent, and Student Performance accounts for the remaining 33 percent of a teacher’s annual evaluation score. For purposes of quantifying a teacher’s annual evaluation, IPPAS identifies the Professional Practices category as “Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation,” and the Student Performance category as “Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation.” Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation is completed in the spring of each school year and consists of the supervising principal’s annual evaluation of the teacher, the teacher’s self-assessment, and the collaboration and mutual accountability score. The evaluative components of Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation are comprised of the previously referenced “five dimensions.” Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation is determined based on student academic performance data (VAM score) as calculated by the FLDOE. VAM scores are released by FLDOE in the fall, and these scores reflect student performance for the preceding school year. Consequently, a teacher will not receive an overall annual evaluation score for the immediate preceding school year until the fall semester during which VAM scores are available. As a practical matter, this explains, in part, why the recommendation for termination letter sent to Respondent by Superintendent Mullins was issued on March 26, 2019.2 2015-2016 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 25, 2016, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a score of 27.71 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the category of “Needs Improvement.” On or about November 2, 2016, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 56.71 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2016-2017 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 5, 2017, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a score of 20.42 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about November 13, 2017, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 50.42 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2 VAM scores for the 2017-2018 school year were released on or about October 19, 2018. As discussed elsewhere herein, Respondent was placed on 90 days probation following the release of her VAM score. The timing of the release of the VAM score, coupled with the 90-day probationary period and related matters, account for the March 2019 date of Superintendent Mullin’s letter to Respondent. 2017-2018 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about May 3, 2018, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent received a score of 34.58 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about October 19, 2018, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-18 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 64.58 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” A PLAN FOR ADDRESSING PROFESSIONAL DEFICIENCIES The School Board, in order to address Respondent’s professional deficiencies as identified during the relevant evaluation periods, provided support to Respondent through the utilization of Professional Development Assistance Plans (PDAPs). PDAPs are designed to provide a teacher with opportunities for professional development, which includes access to online resources, training activities and courses, and opportunities to work with School Board resource and peer mentor teachers. The School Board, acting through Respondent’s supervising administrators, agreed in the PDAPs to support Respondent’s professional growth and development as follows: By providing access to the “District Peer Mentor Teacher for collaboration on dimension 3.” By conducting “informal observations documented in ProGOE with feedback for improvement.” By providing “resources on utilizing formative assessment to check for understanding.” By providing “resources regarding implementing differentiated instruction.” By providing “resources on the utilization of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge.” By providing “exemplary sample lesson plans as a model … to follow.” By providing “pacing guide if needed.” By meeting every two weeks to review weekly lesson plans. By providing Respondent with “an exemplary teacher to observe, as well as a substitute [teacher] for class coverage during observation.” By providing a list of Professional Development courses on classroom management, as well as a substitute teacher to cover Respondent’s class while she attends the course. By providing “assistance and specific feedback from school based coaches.” By completing “informal observations on a bi- monthly basis, and provid[ing] feedback.” The evidence establishes that the School Board honored its commitment to Respondent as outlined in the respective PDAPs. 90 DAYS OF PROBATION, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR TERMINATION By correspondence dated October 29, 2018, the School Board advised Respondent of the following: In accordance with section 1012.34(4), F.S., this shall serve as the District’s notification of unsatisfactory performance. Please be advised that your Professional Service Contract for the 2018-19 academic year is on a probationary status for ninety (90) days. Your contract is being placed on probation due to your receiving an overall “Needs Improvement” rating on your last three (3) consecutive annual performance evaluations. See also section 1012.22, F.S. During the next ninety (90) days, you will be evaluated periodically. You will be apprised of any progress achieved in writing. You will work with the administration of your school to assist you in obtaining opportunities to help correct any noted deficiencies. After February 25, 2019, the ninetieth (90th) day, administration has fourteen (14) days to assess your progress. If no improvement is shown, administration will notify the Superintendent if you do not rate an overall Effective on the Summative Part 1 of your evaluation. Sincerely, Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School Respondent, during her 90-day probationary period, continued to receive professional development services from the School Board, which included working with a peer mentor teacher, participating in CHAMPs training, receiving assistance from a math content specialist, and observing an exemplary math teacher. Burt Clark was the principal at the school where Respondent worked when she was placed on probation. As the principal, Mr. Clark served as Respondent’s supervisor and was responsible for evaluating her performance. During Respondent’s probationary period, Mr. Clark regularly met with Respondent and her union representative to discuss Respondent’s progress and offer assistance. In addition to meeting with Respondent, Mr. Clark also conducted one interim evaluation, four informal observation, and two formal observations of Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark also conducted a number of “walk-throughs,” which provided additional insight into the status of Respondent’s professional development. While it is true that Mr. Clark’s observations of Respondent mainly occurred in the classroom where Respondent was the teacher of record, as opposed to Respondent’s work as a “push-in” teacher, Mr. Clark credibly testified that he had sufficient data to assess Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark, at the end of the probationary period, determined that Respondent’s professional deficiencies remained, and on March 6, 2019, he made the following recommendation to Superintendent Mullins: Ms. Lisa Lemieux had an overall unsatisfactory performance appraisal. We have worked with her to try to improve her instructional strategies; but, it has not been successful in changing the behavior to better serve the students assigned to her. As defined in [section] 1012.34(4), [Florida Statutes], February 25, 2019, was the 90th day since the notification of her 90-day probation for this contract year and after demonstrating no improvement on the Summative Part 1, I have assessed that the performance deficiencies have not been corrected. I would recommend the termination of her employment with Brevard Public Schools. Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School After receiving Mr. Clark’s recommendation to terminate Respondent’s employment, Superintendent Mullins reviewed Respondent’s last three years of evaluations, considered the extensive support and training provided to Respondent by the School Board, and concluded that termination of Respondent’s employment was warranted and justified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Brevard County enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy D. Envall, General Counsel Brevard County Public Schools 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940 (eServed) Mark S. Levine, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Shannon L. Kelly, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Howard Michael Waldman Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Dr. Mark Mullins, Superintendent School Board of Brevard County 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Leon County School District has just cause, as defined in Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), to end the Respondent's tenured employment as a teacher, due to allegedly deficient performance.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mr. Waters, has worked as a Special Education Teacher in Leon County for approximately 13 years. He most recently has worked in the field of Special Education at Oakridge Elementary School (Oakridge), starting in the school year 2001-2002 and ending in December 2005. Mr. Waters is married and has two children by a former wife, with whom he shares custody of his children. He has volunteered for 18 years as a Troop Leader for a troop of disabled Boy Scouts in Tallahassee. He has been recognized for those efforts by being the recipient of the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital Foundation's "everyday hero" award. He has also been a finalist for the Tallahassee area "volunteer of the year award" in 2005. When Mr. Waters was hired at Oakridge Elementary School he was interviewed by the head ESE teacher or "team leader", Donna George. He was chosen for the available position from three or four final applicants, based upon her favorable view of the qualities he could bring to the position, which she still believes to be the case. During the 2001-2002 school year the principal at Oakridge was Michelle Crosby. Ms. Hodgetta Huckaby was the Assistant Principal. Sometime during that school year Mr. Waters encountered a problem involving two of his students being engaged in an after school fight. He apparently referred the students for discipline to the Assistant Principal, Ms. Huckaby, and she sent the students back to his class. He disagreed with this disciplinary decision and appealed the matter to the principal, Ms. Crosby. Ms. Crosby resolved the disciplinary matter in favor of Mr. Waters' position. Ms. Huckaby thereupon called Mr. Waters to her office to upbraid him and express her anger at his having "gone over her head." After a heated exchange between the two she told the Respondent to "never come back into my office for any reason." Thereafter, for the remainder of his tenure at Oakridge their relationship was very strained, especially during the time Ms. Huckaby was Principal, which began at the beginning of the following year, the 2002-2003 school year, after Ms. Crosby left Oakridge and was replaced by Ms. Huckaby. In order to replace Ms. Huckaby's vacant former position as assistant principal, the District assigned Kim McFarland as the new assistant principal in the fall of 2002. Prior coming to the assistant principalship at Oakridge, Ms. McFarland had served as a fifth grade regular classroom teacher for 10 years in the District. She had no prior administrative experience and had no experience in Exceptional Student Education. Her degree field is in the area of elementary education. After the events at issue in this case, Ms. McFarland left Oakridge, on July 1, 2006, to become the assistant principal at Swiftcreek Middle School. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland jointly performed the annual evaluation of the Respondent for the 2002-2003 school year. They used the "Accomplished Teacher Performance Feed Back Summary Form." Mr. Waters's overall rating for that year was "at expectancy level." Ms. McFarland wrote several positive comments concerning his performance on that document, but he also received ratings of "below expectancy" in two areas, teacher performance improvement and professional development. Also, in the Spring of 2003, Ms. McFarland observed his class on or about April 23, 2003. She was positive about that evaluation and wrote Mr. Waters a note wherein she indicated that he had "presented a great lesson" and that his students were engaged and on task. She praised him for monitoring student behavior using a behavior management point system and found his room "exciting" because he displayed a great deal of students work on the walls. In the 2003-2004 school year, specifically in November 2003, Ms. McFarland informed Mr. Waters that his lesson plans were not adequate because he was failing to incorporate a new component which required that notations of student remedial reading levels be made, represented by "lower case" roman numerals. She required him to submit his lesson plans to be reviewed each Monday while he was seeking to improve his lesson plans. Thereafter, on April 26, 2004, Ms. McFarland notified the Respondent that he had satisfactorily complied with lesson plan requirements and no longer needed to submit lesson plans for review each Monday. She also emphasized in that letter of April 26, 2004, that he should adhere to his lesson plans, as prepared, in his teaching presentation to the extent possible, so that when administrators observed his room they would be able to determine exactly what he was performing at the time simply by looking at his lesson plan book. In the meantime, Mr. Waters was given an improvement notice on February 20, 2004, by Ms. McFarland. This was because of her concern that he was not fully cooperating with procedures and recommendations concerning behavior management; recommendations made by behavior management consultants on contract with the School Board. Those consultants were working with him and his emotionally handicapped (EH) student class at that time. During their meetings and contacts with Mr. Waters and his EH student class that year he had exhibited a good level of agreement and cooperation with their recommendations to him regarding changes in behavior management methodologies for his class, but the consultant, Dr. Adams, perceived that he was slow or reluctant to actually carry them out. Later in the spring of that school year, Dr. Adams took Mr. Waters on a tour at Kate Sullivan Elementary and another school, to observe how behavior management models or methodologies were employed in EH classes at those schools and which Dr. Adams opined he was later reluctant to implement in his own class. They communicated these concerns about his perceived intransigence in changing his behavioral management style or methodology to the administration at Oakridge, which resulted in the February 20, 2004, improvement notice from Ms. McFarland. Significantly, however, Ms. Haff, in her observations of the Respondent's performance during the following school year found that he had received the higher level of training in the "Champs program" concerning behavioral management, and had been and was successfully implementing it in his class and with his students to a great degree, although, of necessity, adapting it to the needs of his students and his role then as a resource teacher, rather than as a discrete EH classroom teacher during the following 2004-2005 school year. Ms. Huckaby changed his assignment from duty as a direct class EH teacher to that of "resource teacher" after the 2003-2004 school year. Mr. Waters had a meeting with Ms. McFarland on February 20, 2004, to discuss that improvement notice, and her concerns that he was not fully cooperating with the recommendations of the behavior management consultants in terms of not carrying out their recommendations. During the course of that meeting she stated, "You know its not me that’s behind this" implying to him that Ms. Huckaby was actually the instigator of the improvement notice concerning this subject matter. Apparently Mr. Waters contacted union officials for the Leon County Teachers Association (LCTA) complaining that the improvement notice was too general and did not specifically point out what must be done to correct the perceived problem. In response to those concerns, in part, Ms. McFarland issued a subsequent improvement notice on April 27, 2004, with a few more specific expectations and which updated the status of Mr. Waters's efforts to address the concerns raised in the February 20th revised improvement notice. Ms. McFarland observed Mr. Waters' class on March 11 and March 16 and did a "part A" teacher's assessment document for each observation. Mr. Waters was due to be evaluated using the Accomplished Teacher Summary Form for 2003-2004 and so the assessment part A form was not required to be completed for him. Nonetheless, Ms. McFarland told Mr. Waters that these were really informal observations and she was completing these observation forms in order to get some practice using them since it was her first year as an administrator, formally observing and evaluating teachers independent of Ms. Huckaby. The Respondent did not get a copy of these assessment part A documents until June of that year and did not get an opportunity to discuss them with Ms. McFarland. Ms. McFarland also completed the Accomplished Teacher Feedback Summary Form for the 2003-2004 school year. That form states that overall assessments must be satisfactory if all the required areas are completed. Ms. McFarland described Waters' performance unfavorably in the "comments" section of the form and gave him an overall performance rating of "below expectancy level." He received this Accomplished Teacher Summary Form rating document on or about September 22, 2004. During the month of October he inquired of Ms. McFarland, union officials, and school district officials concerning the meaning of his overall "below expectancy" rating for the 2003-2004 school year. Apparently an attorney for the school district informed him that the evaluation was considered satisfactory on the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form, unless school administrators produced an evaluation document that indicated an overall "needs improvement" rating. Ms. McFarland had informed him that the Accomplished Teacher document reflecting the below expectancy rating was his only official evaluation. Although Mr. Waters received confirmation that the use of the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form rendered his 2003-2004 evaluation to be automatically a satisfactory one, it is also clear that Ms. McFarland intended to give him the below expectancy rating and for some reason mistakenly used the wrong form and procedure. During October 2004 the Respondent met with Ms. Huckaby to discuss some matter unrelated to his performance rating. During the course of that meeting, at which only Ms. Huckaby and the Respondent were present, Ms. Huckaby became angry at the Respondent and engaged in a tirade, calling him "the worst teacher she had ever seen, as well as making other unprofessional comments." Mr. Waters then stated to the effect that he did not think he was such a bad teacher since he had consistently received satisfactory evaluations. Ms. Huckaby then indicated that she felt he had received a needs improvement evaluation for the 2003-2004 school year, to which Mr. Waters retorted that based upon the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form being used his evaluation was deemed to be satisfactory overall. Ms. Huckaby then angrily threatened him with an unsatisfactory evaluation for the upcoming 2004-2005 school year. Only a week or two elapsed after this meeting and comment by Ms. Huckaby when, at Ms. Huckaby's behest, Mr. Waters inclusion class was changed to a "pull-out reading group," meaning that he then had to work with a new reading curriculum and plan his own reading lessons using that curriculum instead of relying upon and carrying out the regular classroom teacher's daily lesson plan reading goals, which had been the program he had been instructed to perform previously. Ms. Eydie Sands was dispatched by Ms. Huckaby to observe Mr. Waters' reading class and made critical observations during follow-up meetings with Mr. Waters and Ms. Huckaby; the team-taught writing group jointly taught by Mr. Waters and Ms. Wacksman, which had worked well in rendering progress to the students in writing, was abruptly separated into two sections by Ms. Huckaby with no explanation or apparent reason; thereafter on approximately November 6, 2004, Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a lengthy letter of harsh criticism as to almost all aspects of his teaching performance and directed him to immediately comply with 13 directives contained in the letter. Additionally, Mr. Waters' 2004-2005 school year resource teacher schedule was changed five times, adding further confusion to an already difficult year, which started with a new classroom assignment. The new room was piled high with boxes of materials for many teachers and classrooms other than his own. This circumstance required him to spend his entire pre-planning time moving and clearing out his newly assigned room so that he could use it. Significant changes and requirements were imposed for lesson plans, student progress monitoring requirements, and the new A3 computerized IEP technology, as well as a substantially increased amount of related paperwork burdens placed upon all teachers at the school, including Mr. Waters, through Ms. Huckaby's policy directives. One directive in the November 6, 2004, letter from Ms. Huckaby required Mr. Waters to again submit weekly lesson plans to school administrators by 8:00 a.m. every Monday morning. The normal procedure provided for having lesson plans to be examined from time to time, after advance administration notice to the faculty of their lesson plan review dates. Despite lesson plan component changes made unilaterally by the administration in both the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years which added several time-consuming, ill-defined requirements to the previous less formal structure for lesson plans, the Respondent's lesson plans during those years remained detailed and organized when compared to those of his fellow special education teachers who apparently were deemed to have performed this task appropriately. In carrying out this instruction Mr. Waters tried to obtain model lesson plans and to incorporate the new requirements into his plans. They were consistently unacceptable to Ms. Huckaby, however, and ultimately cited as one of the reasons for his termination recommendation. Similar, and even less detailed lesson plans of his colleagues that had been found acceptable, were not reviewed or remained the same even after administrators provided plan improvement instructions, without those teachers being subjected to discipline therefor. In an effort to comply with the directive concerning his lesson plans and because the new lesson plan components imposed were difficult to understand and reasonably apply, especially for an ESE teacher and students, Mr. Waters sought to obtain model plans and lesson plan advice, but received little or no meaningful help. His mentor teacher assigned for 2004-2005, Michelle Smith, did not respond to his request for samples of her lesson plans. The Oakridge administration gave him only limited excerpts of two teachers' lesson plans for 2004-2005, which were confusing and did not themselves comply with the new lesson plan format imposed that year. In the 2005-2006 year the Respondent was not asked to submit lesson plans on a weekly basis and received no assistance with lesson plans until Ms. Palazesi, who was observing his class or classes that fall, in early November, wrote a model lesson plan, adapted from one of his actual lessons. Ms. Palezesi, however, was not aware of the lesson plan requirements in place at Oakridge then, and even her lengthy lesson plan sample, for just one class period, did not meet all of Oakridge's lesson plan criteria imposed for 2005-2006. It is noteworthy that the lesson plans for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 of teacher Charles Robshaw, also a resource teacher for Special Ed at Oakridge clearly do not comply with the lesson plan requirements. This fact serves to corroborate the Respondent's contention that only he was held strictly accountable for the administration's excessively detailed and to some extent non-germane lesson plan requirements. In both pertinent school years the Respondent was deemed deficient by Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland in terms of timely or fully complying with student progress monitoring test data compilation requirements. The Respondent did keep abreast of his students daily classroom progress and maintained files on their work and test papers. In the 2004-2005 school year, however, in the early part of the year (September thorough mid- November) he encountered problems in timely complying with submitting the "cover sheet" student progress test data information as part of the curriculum notebook he was required to supply the administration, through the mechanism of either monthly or bi-weekly progress monitoring meetings between teachers and the administration. He was given a needs improvement notice as to this issue, and as the year progressed, he complied with these requirements. In the 2005-2006 school year he inadvertently missed the initial progress monitoring meeting because he became confused as to when his fourth grade team was supposed to meet for the progress monitoring session and he candidly admitted that was his own mistake. Ms. McFarland did not criticize him for that, but simply reminded him that he had missed the meeting. A subsequent meeting early in the fall of 2005 was scheduled with Ms. McFarland and he did attend with his notebook (or other required data) for a 3:00 p.m. meeting. He had an pre-existing appointment after school at 3:30, which he could not miss, and he informed Ms. McFarland of that fact. She excused him from the meeting. After those two early progress monitoring meeting discrepancies in September 2005, however, the Respondent complied with his progress monitoring requirements and those issues were not again raised with him, until raised as one of the reasons in Ms. Huckaby's final decision in late December 2005 as to why she recommended his termination. Significantly, the school administration only checked to see that teachers other than Mr. Waters had completed similar student data compilations only once or twice early in each school year. Subsequently, each year the administration was less interested in actually inspecting such data and course test score charts plotted on spread sheets/graphs by most teachers. In neither of the two school years in question was Mr. Waters given a full planning period or a week after students arrived to prepare for his resource assignment ESE students. These are privileges which were customarily given to resource teachers in prior years. Despite the meager planning time he was accorded on the administrator's schedule, in reality he lost significant valuable planning time by escorting students to and from classes and due to his morning duties. Adequate planning time is crucial to the work of special education teachers, particularly if one is deemed to be struggling with lesson planning, IEP preparation and timeliness issues, and related A3 IEP technology time demands. The Respondent asked for schedule changes to improve his ability to meet the new administration demands, as, for instance, to allow time during the day to input IEP requirements into the A3 system to prepare IEP documents, instead of at the end of the school day when all the ESE teachers were on the A3 system, which slowed it down drastically. Ms. Huckaby, however, never agreed to provide such schedule changes so that he could more efficiently use his planning time. Indeed, in the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Huckaby scheduled Mr. Waters to spend 26.25 hours teaching students each week which is more than the 25 hour per week maximum teaching time provided by the collective bargaining agreement while still providing him less than a full class period of uninterrupted planning time. Sometime in the 2003-2004 school year the system for generating individual education plans (IEP) changed from paper IEPs or the so called "gibco" IEP system (apparently a school based software operated system) to a district-wide computer net system called the "A3 IEP." This was a difficult system to learn and to use in completing IEP's without mistakes in the first effort. The District made training available in 2004, particularly in the summer of 2004 and subsequently. It can take as much as three hours to create IEP's "from scratch" on the A3 system and to input all the necessary student demographic and test score history data to upgrade a previously hand-written or gibco-generated IEP in converting it to an A3 IEP. This is especially so for newly trained or partially trained teachers. Complicating these time constraints were the Respondent's limited planning time, with competing meetings being held in the conference room area where cumulative ("cume") folders were housed at Oakridge, which are necessary to the student data research required to generate the IEP's. Thus teacher access to the demographic and testing information needed for IEP completion was somewhat restricted at times. Moreover, Mr. Waters had his only significant block of continuous planning time, when he could work on IEP's, immediately after school. This is the time of day when the A3 IEP computer network operates very slowly because most of the ESE teachers in the entire district are attempting to use it immediately after school hours. These factors are part of the reasons Mr. Waters in the Spring of 2004 had an occasion when IEP's were prepared somewhat late and computer-generated progress reports on one occasion were submitted several days late. It is also true that the Respondent and Ms. Wacksman were not formally trained on the A3 system until late January 2005. This delay in receiving the A3 system training appears to have been due to both the Respondent's and Ms. Wackman's delay in seeking the training and the district's and the school's inattention to scheduling the training sessions. With regard to the occasion testified to by Ms. Petrick concerning his late preparation of, or need to correct mistakes in some IEPs, the Respondent established that he immediately corrected the minor mistakes in several of the IEPs he prepared and that, when Ms. Petrick contacted him about the need for him to make corrections, in several instances the corrections had already been made on the original IEP in question but had not gotten corrected on her copy. Moreover, four or five of the students who had to have corrected IEPs, or whose IEPs were submitted slightly late were students who the Respondent himself had identified to his administration as being wrongly placed by the administration. The students were supposed to have been in a fourth grade level program and instead were in a first or second grade level program. This necessitated re-constituting their IEPs. The Respondent, after alerting the administration to its error also completed the new IEPs on these students. In any event, it is true that Mr. Waters could have begun sooner and more timely prepared the IEPs involved and the same is true of the occasion when the somewhat late progress reports caused his reprimand by Ms. McFarland. It is also true, however, that the requirement of using the cumbersome A3 system to prepare IEPs, more particularly the lack of adequate usable planning time, and the somewhat chaotic effects of five schedule changes during that school year imposed by Ms. Huckaby also contributed to the issue encountered near the end of that year concerning timeliness and corrected IEPs. Although the Respondent received less than satisfactory evaluation ratings as to professionalism and ethics because of the issue regarding delays and mistakes in the IEPs described above, these were a small number of occurrences, concerning very few students, at one particular period of time in the school year. They did not cause any delay or other adverse effect in the provision of ESE services to students nor the loss of any federal, state, or other special education funds, or adverse effects on the school's rating. Moreover, this aspect of Mr. Waters' performance improved after this occasion. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland made significant changes in required lesson plan and progress monitoring formats, and student progress charting. These requirements were considerably more time demanding and were accompanied by rigid reliance on upgraded, scripted reading and standardized math curricula with the advent of the 2005-2006 school year. These new requirements were to be applied by all ESE teachers for their students. Ms. Huckaby imposed a severely time-constrained, scripted reading curriculum for Mr. Waters' class and also a mandatory new vocabulary program that took up to 15 minutes more of his reading class time block each day. She also required an additional fluency probe-recording requirement to be carried out weekly in all reading classes, including Mr. Waters', which required an average time for completion of five minutes per student. Mr. Waters' reading mastery (RM) curriculum required class time scheduled during the first ninety minutes of his day in the 2005-2006 year. This was clearly impossible to carry out and remain consistent with the RM program's lesson sequence requirements, particularly with the addition of the fluency probe and vocabulary project requirements that Mr. Waters and all teachers were required to include in their reading classes that year. In fact, the reading mastery schedule for Mr. Waters was impossible to carry out within the allotted time period, even when one was not additionally delivering the required vocabulary project lesson and doing the reading probe requirement. In this regard one of the individuals asked to assist Mr. Waters in the 2005-2006 school year was Donna Haff, of the FDLRS staff. Ms. Haff, in working with Mr. Waters, tried to develop a better means for him to address the RM scheduling problem. She began that effort by "model teaching" his scripted RM classes in order to better understand his problem. This means that she simply tried to teach the RM class herself to see if it could be done within the mandatory curriculum and time period in which Mr. Waters was required to do it. Despite her extensive experience and familiarity with RM curriculum and her experience teaching it as a trainer for teachers, Ms. Haff was unable to complete the RM lesson in the time allotted to Mr. Waters, even without performing the mandatory new vocabulary program or any reading fluency probe requirements. She concluded that his RM schedule could not reasonably be carried out. She informed Ms. Huckaby of that conclusion. Ms. Huckaby expressed her frustration to Ms. Haff concerning this problem by asking, "Do you realize how much time we have put into this?" Ms. Huckaby decided not to act on Ms. Haff's advice and decided not to make any changes in Mr. Waters' 2005-2006 RM schedule. On or about June 3, 2005, Ms. Huckaby imposed an improvement notice on Mr. Waters, listing items in his instruction and teaching management that she felt needed improvement and concomitantly imposing a 90-day probationary period running from a date in September through early December 2005. Making only two observations of Mr. Waters' teaching herself, she relied upon reports of Margot Palazesi's 13 observations of Mr. Waters' classroom and teaching during the 2005-2006 school year from generally September through December. Ms. Palazesi's primary expertise, however, was in IEP compliance, IDEA compliance and grant funding compliance. She has a great deal of training in exceptional student education including a PHD degree, but she was not trained or qualified to work within and with regard to Leon County's performance observation and assessment for teacher evaluation, as either an administrator or a classroom mentor. Ms. Palazesi was unfamiliar with the lesson plan requirements at Oakridge and with the CHAMPS behavioral program requirements. She acknowledged that she understood Mr. Waters had the CHAMPS program implemented in the behavioral management aspect of his class and teaching, but she had little familiarity with what it entailed. She did acknowledge, however, that he had an award system for behavior and academic performance for his students built into and actively followed in his classroom. Ms. Palazesi also was not certified in reading and had not taught a reading mastery class in 20 years. Nonetheless, she made 8 of her 13 observations of Mr. Waters' teaching in his RM class. She did not have any understanding of the impossible double-scripted reading class schedule for his two reading groups that he was required by Ms. Huckaby to execute within the 90 minute time block. Through her interaction with Mr. Waters she came to understand from him that there was more material in the double-scripted reading curriculum than could be delivered in the 90 minute period, as Ms. Haff's testimony also showed. Ms. Palazesi, nonetheless, criticized his lecture teaching style, without acknowledging that that teaching method might have been effectively imposed on Mr. Waters in large part due to the impractical time constraints placed upon his delivery of the reading program, the vocabulary requirement and the reading fluency assessment requirement, imposed on him by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Palazesi also noted, early in her observations, that Mr. Waters did not, in her view, engage in a review of material previously instructed, as, for instance, the day before, or inform the students what they would be learning in the lesson that day. Concerning one or more of her October observances, however, she acknowledged in her testimony that he had done that or started doing that. Moreover, one of her notations was acknowledged by her to be inaccurate in that she criticized him for not doing an introductory portion to his lesson, but then acknowledged that she had arrived some 10 minutes late, missing that portion of his lesson for that day. She also acknowledged that he was receptive to following her suggestions for improvements she thought should be made in his classroom management, in terms of assigning student desks, changing the arrangement of the room as to where a work table was placed, etc., and he did so. Ms. Palazesi also noted that he had a very good rapport with his students, and that his students behaved well and did their work in his classroom. They were on task much of the time. Although she criticized him for departing from his lesson plan on her first observation, in later observations she acknowledged he appeared to adhere more to his lesson plan. Ms. Palazesi was ostensibly dispatched to Mr. Waters' classroom to provide him technical ESE department-type assistance. However, she primarily engaged in making suggestions concerning ways that Mr. Waters could improve otherwise acceptable lessons and lesson plans and make improvements to his classroom management and the physical layout of his classroom. She acknowledges in her testimony that this was an exercise that she could have undertaken in any teacher's classroom and instructional regimen, and could have found ways to suggest improvements. Her suggestions, however, to the extent they were criticisms, appeared to have been relied on, and, inferentially, used to corroborate Ms. Huckaby's negative findings. During the second part of the 2004-2005 school year and the first half 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters used computer technology in his classroom. He received advice from Ms. Donna Haff on how to incorporate it as a relevant and exciting way to reinforce his course curriculum and began doing so. In each of the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, he used power point technology in the form of game show question and answer formats ("Who Wants to be a Millionaire," "Jeopardy," and "Hollywood Squares/Tic Tac Toe"). He also employed other types of computer technology in his classroom on a regular basis, whether or not they were also noted in his lesson plans or were specifically observed by Ms. Huckaby, Ms. McFarland, or Ms. Palazesi. He demonstrated an ability to incorporate technology into his classroom instruction at least as effectively as most of his colleagues. Despite this fact and Ms. Huckaby's own praise for Mr. Waters' use of power point technology as a reinforcement tool in her December 14, 2005, observation, Ms. Huckaby still asserted to the Superintendent of the District in her letter recommendation for his termination that Mr. Waters did not adequately incorporate technology into his teaching and claimed that the December 14, 2005, lesson where she observed his use of technology marked "the first and only time he has integrated technology in the teaching and learning process." If Ms. Huckaby had made adequate observations of his teaching and his classes, or had even adequately conferred with Ms. Haff, she would have known of the extent of his use of technology in the classroom (or else perhaps she knew it and disregarded it). This statement to the Superintendent is one of the indicators of the level of bias Ms. Huckaby bore towards Mr. Waters. Most of the ESE teachers, including Ms. George, Mr. Waters, and Ms. Wacksman customarily do not employ computerized grading of their students because of the unique, singular nature of each ESE student's problems, learning styles, abilities, and each ESE student's goals and the varying curriculum and social needs of each ESE student. These and the other individualized differences among ESE students render a hand-written old fashioned grade book the most effective way to make a record of each student's progress toward that student's IEP- codified goals. Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a negative rating in the area of technology use partly because he did not use a computerized grading system, but neither did any other ESE teacher at Oakridge. Mr. Waters was singled out for criticism for that aspect of his teaching and the others were not. All teachers at Oakridge, particularly ESE teachers, during both the relevant school years, worked under increasing lesson plan requirements and student performance monitoring and documentation requirements and changes, as well as curriculum changes and related paperwork and time constraints. These were very stressful and no doubt were related in a significant part to the fact that the school had slipped from a "C" rating to a "D" rating on Ms. Huckaby's watch as principal. This no doubt caused significant tension and anxiety for all concerned on the instructional staff and in the administration. Only Mr. Waters, however, was held strictly accountable to all deadlines and all aspects of the burdensome documentation requirements and time constraints imposed during those two school years. In the context of his limited planning time, the excessive student contact time scheduled for him in 2005-2006, the delays he encountered in getting A3 IEP System training (some of which were self-inflicted), the difficulties encountered in gaining sufficient access to the conference room where the cume folders were maintained in order to comply with progress monitoring requirements, as well as the repeated schedule changes to his 2004-2005 assignment schedule and the time constraints of his 2005-2006 reading mastery schedule, put the Respondent in a position where it was impossible for him to timely and fully comply with every requirement imposed on him. Ms. Huckaby's close monitoring of the Respondent, as compared to other teachers, under such circumstances, is reflective of her bias in favor of a recommendation of termination. It impelled her, Ms. McFarland and Ms. Palazesi to document and exaggerate the significance of every minor error or omission that involved Mr. Waters. Arranging for ESE meetings, monitoring and complying with deadlines related to IEP's, monitoring ESE consult situations and completing all IEP-related paperwork are the responsibilities of the assigned ESE teacher. The carrying out of these tasks, however, often involves frequent communications among, and timely cooperation with several other people, such as other ESE teachers, regular classroom teachers, school administrators, the District Staffing Specialist, and the ESE students' parents. Mistakes, delays, and miscommunications concerning these ESE teacher responsibilities will occur and while they are not desirable they are not unusual. When such problems arise they are normally corrected by all persons involved as quickly and cooperatively as possible without resort to blame. Although Ms. Petrick became critical of paperwork problems and delays Mr. Waters was responsible for in the last half 2004-2005 school year, Oakridge school lost no federal funding because of them nor was it shown that any students suffered in academic or behavioral progress because of them. It is noteworthy that the IEP-related deficiencies concerning Mr. Waters began to arise only in the second half of the 2004- 2005 school year around the same time that critical memoranda from both Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland were becoming the norm. In any event, Mr. Waters improved in these areas in the 2005-2006 school year. Mr. Waters received little of the help promised him in the September 2005 revised improvement notice document. He did not have a national board-certified mentor assigned him for 2005- 2006, did not get to meet with consultants from the Reading Mastery Plus Program, "Open Court," the "Great Leaps," or the Harcourt Brace Mathematics Programs. He did not meet with anyone from the Florida Inclusion Network. The administration did not provide adequate or meaningful assistance to him in either school year, but rather denied, delayed answering, or ignored his specific requests for more planning time, model lesson plans which would comply with Ms. Huckaby's lesson plan changes and requirements, relief from his impossible RM schedule for 2005- 2006, and his request for a transfer to another school. Instead of providing practical help to him (with the exception of Dr. Adams), the District focused its "assistance" mostly upon sending more staff and district employees to observe him and provide resulting reports to Ms. Huckaby. (Ms. Smith and Ms. Sands in 2004-2005 and Ms. Palazesi in 2005-2006.) During the 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters work was being scrutinized over the 90 day performance improvement probationary period imposed by Ms. Huckaby which ended on December 8, 2005. During that time, however, his classroom activities were observed only once by Ms. Huckaby, on November 8, 2005. Ms. Huckaby's second observation of him took place nearly a week after the end of the probation period and was two and one- half hours long. It resulted in a critical observation report based primarily upon the last third of that classroom time when Mr. Waters had a formal lesson plan to take his writing class students to a "writing boot camp" session to be attended by all fourth grade teachers and students. Ms. Huckaby, however, refused to let him follow his lesson plan for that day's writing class and insisted that he teach the group there in his room. It was the last day his writing class would meet before the Christmas break which is why he planned to let them go to the writing boot camp with students from other classes on that day. There were no lesson plans for the rest of that week that he could adapt to the remaining one- third of his class that day, with the students unexpectedly present because of Ms. Huckaby's order; it was the last day of school before the Christmas break, and lesson plans for the next day or other days remaining in the week were thus unnecessary. Nevertheless, Ms. Huckaby made negative comments concerning allegedly inadequate planning for his writing group for the class that day after she concluded her observation. Ms. Huckaby had access to Mr. Waters' lesson plans for his December 14, 2005, class and before her observations that day. She had previously reviewed his lesson plans while observing his class to be sure he was precisely following those plans as he had often been instructed to do. She no doubt reviewed his plans for the December 14th lesson and had to have seen the writing boot camp entry. Nevertheless, she refused to let his students attend the writing boot camp. It was by this means that she was able to document a purportedly inadequately planned writing class activity for that day and then relied upon those negative comments in support of her termination recommendation to the superintendent which, inferentially, she had already decided to write. Ms. Huckaby only observed Mr. Waters classroom activities one time during the probationary period. Her only other observation of his classroom activities occurred on the December 14, 2005, occasion, approximately a week after the probation period ended. School administrators, however, are required to periodically evaluate and apprise teachers of their progress during such a 90-day probationary period, which Ms. Huckaby did not do.1/ The Respondent was confronted with a significant increase in time consuming paperwork/reporting requirements lesson plan requirements and the other burdens depicted in the above findings of fact, which Ms. Huckaby placed upon him. Other teachers and ESE teachers had to contend with some of these as well, although to a lesser extent and with less micro- management by Ms. Huckaby. Nonetheless, the Respondent made significant improvements in teaching methods, lesson plan quality and organization, classroom organization, the variety of planned classroom activities and his technology-supported lesson delivery methods. Mr. Waters was effective enough in his teaching and had made sufficient progress so that he received the second highest number of votes for "teacher of the year" from Oakridge's faculty and staff. He thus only ranked behind one revered teacher who had received the award before and who had more recently received the most votes, but declined the award in order to allow someone else to get it. Mr. Waters complied with all reasonable requests made of him, by and large, and in those areas of less than acceptable compliance made the necessary improvements in his compliance. He satisfactorily executed his job duties in both 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years as long as he was at Oakridge. Notwithstanding those improvements in performance, Ms. Huckaby continued to evaluate him as if he had made no improvements, pronouncing in June 2005 the results she had angrily promised him in their October 2004 meeting. She re- confirmed that negative assessment in December 2005 with her termination recommendation, made with only one observation by her during the actual period of his 90-day probationary status. Mr. Waters' teaching and classroom management performance in 2004-2005 as well as 2005-2006 and Ms. Huckaby's and Ms. McFarland's criticism of it, culminating in the termination recommendation by Ms. Huckaby, did not result and was not predicated on his students' FCAT scores. Ms. Huckaby admitted as much in her testimony as to both relevant years. The Petitioner attempted, in its rebuttal case only, to introduce test-related evidence that students of Mr. Waters in the 2004-2005 school year did not do well on standardized tests. That exhibit, and the information it was prepared from, however, were not made available at the hearing, during discovery, were not disclosed in the pre-hearing stipulation, and were not disclosed as a reason for Mr. Waters' performance criticism and termination by any charging document, notice or pleading by the Petitioner made a part of this record. The Petitioner in essence was using or attempting to use the proffered Exhibit 46 to buttress its case-in-chief because it was not rebuttal of anything raised or offered in the Respondent's case. Therefore, it was excluded on the basis that it constituted improper rebuttal evidence and, moreover, because of the non-disclosure problem referenced above, was not admissible on due process of law and "notice pleading" principles. Moreover, the information included in the charts in Petitioner's proffered Exhibit 46 is misleading with respect to comparative student progress issues by teacher. There is confusion as to which student was the pupil of Mr. Waters or another ESE teacher or teachers. It is difficult to determine based upon that exhibit, and the testimony proffered concerning it, an accurate comparison of student progress by the students depicted under Mr. Waters's teaching performance versus that of other teachers. Further, the "Writes Upon Request" chart comparison contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 48 and the testimony related to it, was clearly not a reason used or considered in lodging performance-related criticism against Mr. Waters or ultimately in the decision to terminate him. It clearly could not have been considered until several months after Mr. Waters had been removed from the Oakridge school. Had those Writes Upon Request chart results been considered by Ms. Huckaby in the context of this case, they would not serve as preponderant evidence of sub- standard performance by Mr. Waters, considering the other evidence of the circumstances and abilities of his students in conjunction with his performance. Mr. Waters is at minimum an adequate teacher and in some aspects of his performance a superior teacher, as, for instance, in his ability to advance his students' performance in writing and in terms of his ability to motivate his students and establish a good rapport, with an interest in learning, in his students. His classroom management skills, instructional methods and classroom demeanor fall within the parameters of acceptable performance and behavior as a teacher and an ESE teacher. He consistently and successfully relied upon his own behavior management reward system for his students, employed the Champs Program in his classroom and was successful at motivating his students to enjoy learning. In demonstrating a very good rapport with his students, he always created a classroom environment of mutual respect that is conducive to student learning and his students were learning. His overall performance for both school years at issue was objectively satisfactory despite Ms. Huckaby's biased assessment of his performance during those years and in her ultimate termination recommendation. In fact, the excessive number of areas of criticism by Ms. Huckaby concerning Mr. Waters job performance made it quite difficult to demonstrate mastery of every criticized area, much less to demonstrate it all in only two formal observation attempts by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Donna George is a 21-year career ESE teacher. She has a master's degree in the areas of learning disabilities, emotional handicap, and varying exceptionalities. She has spent 13 of her teaching years at Oakridge school. She is the ESE Department Team Leader at Oakridge, as well as the "technology contact" teacher, who trains and assists other teachers in implementation of technology programs and equipment at Oakridge. She assists in teacher technology training. She is also a National Board Certified ESE Teacher. Ms. George is thus a leader on the staff at Oakridge. She has observed in ESE meetings and in school-wide faculty meetings, throughout Ms. Huckaby's tenure as Principal, that Ms. Huckaby has an autocratic, dictatorial management style, and an aversion to allowing commentary or questions regarding her policies, directives or programs at Oakridge. Ms. Huckaby has demonstrated little tolerance for questions or comments she perceives to reflect less than complete agreement with her positions or policies. Indeed, although Ms. George is the ESE team leader, she seldom has asked questions or sought clarifications of Ms. Huckaby during such meetings, because of her fear that she would be yelled at, treated with disdain, anger or even with reprisal. Such has also been the experience of Ms. Wacksman and others. Ms. George established that Ms. Huckaby's management style had driven many good teachers away from Oakridge. A survey by the district staff concerning long-term teacher retention rates showed that Oakridge had the lowest retention rate at 17 percent. The next lowest school in the survey had approximately 30 percent retention rate. This survey encompassed the period beginning with the 1999-2000 school year to present. Ms. George observed that Ms. Huckaby often responded to questions or comments from Mr. Waters with both verbal and non-verbal ques, such as eye rolling or turning away or other mannerisms, that generally showed disdain for his questions or his opinions. Ms. George unequivocally opined upon cross- examination by the Petitioner that Ms. Huckaby clearly does not like having Mr. Waters on her staff and was "out to get him." According to Ms. George, Mr. Waters asked questions more frequently than others in faculty meetings, but his questions generally were reasonable ones. He apparently also would attempt to make humorous comments, at times which often irritated Ms. Huckaby and other teachers as well. It is likely that some of his motivation to question Ms. Huckaby and her motivation to treat him with disdain, stemmed from their strained relationship starting with the student disciplinary incident described above. In any event, Ms. George's testimony is accepted in establishing that Ms. Huckaby had a bias in favor of removing the Respondent from her staff, which colored her judgment in making many of her criticisms of his teaching, which long pre-dated his probationary period and which, along with her scant actual observations of his instructional prowess, caused some of his improvements to be overlooked or disregarded, and which caused him to be evaluated more critically than his colleagues as to some performance requirements. In fact, the preponderant evidence establishes that in an objective sense his performance as a teacher, although not flawless, was acceptable and improved in a number of areas. As found in more detail above, in consideration of the circumstances imposed on him by the school administration, in his capacity as a resource teacher, with the time and schedule constraints and disadvantages that status entails, he performed in at least a satisfactory way in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 years at issue.
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 a final order be entered by the Leon County School Board re-instating the Respondent to a similar special education teaching position, with reimbursement for lost wages and benefits, in a manner so as to be "made whole" from the date of termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2007.
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Kimberly Rosario (Respondent), as an employee with the Hernando County School Board (Petitioner or School Board).
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools, grades K through 12, in Hernando County, Florida, and for otherwise providing public education to school- aged children in the county. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat.1/ Rick Markford is the principal at J.D. Floyd K-8 (J.D. Floyd), a school in the Petitioner’s school district. As principal, he has ultimate supervisory authority over all staff members at the school, including custodians. In December 2013, Mr. Markford hired Respondent to serve as a Custodian 1 to work the night shift at J.D. Floyd. Shortly after starting her employment, Respondent’s excessive absenteeism rose to a level where she was taking impermissible leave without pay. As a result, Mr. Markford contacted the School Board’s human resources department for guidance on how to proceed. The School Board has enacted Policy 6.37 to provide the grounds for termination for all educational support and non- certified instructional personnel in its school district. Under Policy 6.37, Group III offenses warrant termination for a first- time violation. Respondent was specifically charged with violating Policy 6.37 Group III offenses “(5) Excessive absenteeism or excessive tardiness” and “(8) Absence from duty without authority, including refusal to report to duty at any time as directed.” Although the Petitioner can proceed directly to termination for a first-time Group III offense, it utilizes a five-step progressive discipline process for excessive absenteeism and absence from duty without authority. The first step is a coaching session with the employee. If the issue continues, the second step is a corrective action plan. The third step is a formal conference with an employee conference report placed in the employee’s file. Step four is a letter of reprimand. And the fifth step is a referral to Human Resources for further action, up to and including termination. In accordance with School Board policy, because of Respondent’s excessive absences, Mr. Markford initiated the five-step process described above. Step 1 occurred on March 7, 2014, when Mr. Markford held a coaching session with Respondent to discuss her absences without pay. She was specifically warned that any further unpaid absences would result in a second meeting and a corrective action plan. On April 17, 2014, Mr. Markford met with Respondent to address her excessive absenteeism and issue a corrective action plan in accordance with Step 2. As part of the corrective action plan, Respondent was informed that all future absences for the 2013-14 school year would require a doctor’s note and she would need to directly contact Mr. Markford. Despite the coaching, Respondent’s absences without pay continued, requiring Mr. Markford to initiate Step 3 in a June 23, 2014, meeting with Respondent. The employee conference report reflects that Respondent was absent without pay from May 29, 2014, through June 16, 2014. Petitioner’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, each year. Although Respondent had no entitlement to continued employment beyond June 30, 2014, Mr. Markford decided to reappoint her for the 2014-15 school year to give her a second chance. Because it was a new school year, any further issues with absenteeism would start at Step 1 of the five-step process rather than continuing directly to Step 4. On July 14, 2014, shortly after the start of the new school year, Mr. Markford had to meet with Respondent to initiate Step 1 in the process due to her taking leave without pay on July 2, 3, and 9, 2014. In the corresponding coaching- session note, Respondent was issued a corrective action plan. Respondent’s impermissible absences continued. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Markford met with Respondent to discuss a corrective action plan related to her continued excessive absenteeism, including her absence on July 16, 2014. That same day, Mr. Markford met with Respondent for an Employee Conference Report due to her continued absences without pay, including her absence on July 17, 2014. As reflected in the Employee Conference Report, Respondent was again informed that being in attendance every day was important. Respondent was directed to contact Mr. Markford directly to notify him of any future absences and that she must provide a doctor’s note for such absences. Despite the coaching, Respondent continued to be absent without pay and failed to comply with the corrective action plan. As a result, Mr. Markford issued her a Letter of Reprimand on September 14, 2014. Mr. Markford again explained to Respondent that “[p]unctual and regular attendance is an essential function of [her] job.” In the Letter of Reprimand, which Respondent signed, Respondent was specifically informed that “any further incidents of absenteeism will be considered willful absenteeism and [that Mr. Markford] will recommend that [her] employment with the [School Board] be terminated.” Following the reprimand, Mr. Markford informed the School Board’s human resources office of the issues with Respondent’s excessive absences and identified the disciplinary procedures he had followed. It was only after Respondent had exhibited a clear pattern of absenteeism and had been specifically warned that her continued actions would lead to a recommendation for termination that she filed a complaint against a co-worker alleging harassment. Specifically, on September 26, 2014, Respondent alleged that Christopher Griesbeck, night Custodian 1 at J.D. Floyd, said her “days are numbered here and laughed.” The complaint also referenced an April 2014 incident where Mr. Griesbeck, who was allegedly upset that Respondent was appointed to a day shift instead of him, took her to classrooms she was responsible for and pointed out deficiencies. There was no allegation that the alleged harassment was sexual in nature. Mr. Markford conducted an investigation into the harassment allegations by interviewing Respondent; Vincent Juliano, a Custodian 2 at J.D. Floyd; Mr. Griesbeck; and several Custodian 1s at J.D. Floyd. After completing the investigation, Mr. Markford determined that Respondent’s “complaint of working in a hostile environment is unfounded.” The investigation revealed that, as a result of Respondent’s high absenteeism, there was a degree of resentment and frustration among some of the custodial staff. Mr. Markford took steps to address the issue and developed a plan to limit the interaction between Respondent and Mr. Griesbeck going forward. Mr. Markford met with Respondent to inform her of his findings. On October 17, 2014, Respondent suffered an injury at work when she mis-stepped and twisted her knee, aggravating a pre-existing injury. A workers’ compensation injury report was completed on October 20, 2014, at Mr. Markford’s insistence and Respondent thereafter received treatment. The next day, October 21, 2014, Respondent was cleared to return to work with restrictions for her left knee. Consistent with the restrictions, as well as the restrictions she had over the next couple of months, J.D. Floyd provided her with light-duty work. On December 15, 2014, Respondent’s treating physician cleared her to return to work from her workers’ compensation injury with no restrictions. But Respondent was absent without authority on December 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23, 2014. The Petitioner’s school district had a vacation break from December 24, 2014, through January 4, 2015. After returning from the break, Respondent’s unauthorized absenteeism continued. On January 6, 2015, Respondent’s treating physician cleared her to return to work on January 12, 2015, again with no restrictions. Despite this, Respondent’s high absenteeism and failure to follow the corrective action plan continued. On January 28, 2015, Mr. Markford held a meeting with Respondent because she was absent on January 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 26, and 27, 2015, without providing a doctor’s note. Mr. Markford explained that he considered Respondent’s actions to be insubordination and the matter would be referred to Human Resources. Respondent’s absences continued. At the time of those continued absences, Respondent would send text messages to Mr. Markford explaining she was not coming to work, and Mr. Markford would respond by informing her that she did not have any leave time and she was required to come to work. She did not comply with the directions. On February 2, 2015, Petitioner’s Director of Human Resources, Dr. Sarah Meaker, wrote a memorandum to the Petitioner’s Equity, Policy, Insurance and Compliance Administrator, Heather Martin, recommending that disciplinary action be imposed against Respondent based on Respondent’s continual absence from work without a doctor’s note. On February 12, 2015, Mr. Markford met with Respondent regarding her continued failure to come to work and non- compliance with the corrective action plan. This was the first workday in February that Respondent showed up to work. Respondent refused to sign any documentation and left work early without authority. On February 13, 2015, Ms. Martin informed Respondent that a pre-determination meeting would be scheduled regarding Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and absenteeism without leave in violation of School Board Policy 6.37 Group III (5) and (8). Petitioner had difficulty trying to contact Respondent in an effort to move forward with the disciplinary process. In reply to a text message from Mr. Markford informing her to contact Ms. Martin, Respondent responded: “They have my number they can use it.” In preparation for the predetermination meeting, Ms. Martin had a calendar created for the 2014-15 school year which showed the number of days and partial days that Respondent was absent. Specifically, for July 2014, Respondent missed five full days and one partial day; for August 2014, she missed four full days and three partial days; for September 2014, she missed seven full days and one partial day; for October 2014, she missed four full days and three partial days; for November 2014, she missed six full days and three partial days; for December 2014, she missed nine full days; for January 2015, she missed 12 full days and five partial days; and for February 2015, through the 18th of that month, she missed 11 full days and one partial day out of the 12 possible work days. The predetermination meeting was held on February 18, 2015. Minutes were kept for the meeting and thereafter transcribed. At the predetermination hearing, Respondent admitted that she was no longer on workers’ compensation because the doctor cleared her as maximum medical improvement (MMI). Respondent offered no valid justification for her excessive absenteeism and absenteeism without authority. Following the meeting, Ms. Martin recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent be terminated due to her excessive absenteeism and absence without authority. On February 19, 2015, Petitioner’s Superintendent of schools, Dr. Lori Romano, charged Respondent with violating School Board Policy 6.37 Group III (5) and (8) based on Respondent “being excessively absent and absent without authority.” Dr. Romano explained there was probable cause for discipline and that she would recommend Respondent’s termination. After Respondent indicated she wished to appeal the recommendation, the matter was transferred to DOAH and an administrative hearing was scheduled. Respondent did not attend the hearing. Respondent did not give advance notice that she would not attend the hearing and she did not explain or provide a reason for her absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Respondent’s employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner Duval County School Board should dismiss the Respondent for professional incompetence pursuant to the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941) as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Duval County School Board. The Respondent, Bobby Palmore, has been an employee of the Petitioner since the 1992-93 school year. The Respondent is a tenured teacher assigned as a guidance counselor. During the 1997-98 school year, the Respondent was a guidance counselor at North Shore Elementary School. The Principal at the school in 1997-98 was Larry Davis. Concerns regarding the Respondent’s work performance at North Shore were raised early in the school year regarding his participation with Intervention Teams. An Intervention Team is formed to assist a guidance counselor with a particular student. The team meets when requested by the guidance counselor. Notwithstanding that the Intervention Team convened at the Respondent’s request, he missed the meeting scheduled for September 29, 1997. His erratic attendance at other Intervention Team meetings was of concern to the Assistant Principal, Martha Johnson, and the Principal. Ms. Johnson spoke with the Respondent about this, and Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about his attendance at these meetings. Respondent’s attendance did not improve. The Respondent’s erratic attendance at Intervention Team Meetings was unsatisfactory performance of his duties and showed a lack of understanding of the subject matter. The Respondent repeatedly interrupted classroom teachers with unannounced and unscheduled calls and visits to their classrooms. This disrupted their classes, and they complained to administrators about Respondent’s conduct. These interruptions were frequently to obtain information regarding students who were being staffed for one reason or another, an activity coordinated by the guidance counselor. The Respondent was officially counseled about these interruptions by Ms. Johnson, but continued to interrupt classes and cause disruptions. This was unsatisfactory job performance and showed the Respondent’s failure to follow directions, plan his activities effectively, and manage his time well. These are considerations in Competency 2 of the Evaluation criteria. The Respondent was asked by Ms. Johnson to make a sign to direct parents and others to a December 12, 1997, Child Study Team (CST) meeting. He did not do so. This also showed the Respondent’s inability to follow direction. On January 13, 1998, the Respondent told Deborah Nurse, an employee of the school, in a rude and loud voice, that she was not to use the copying machine that was outside his office. Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent in writing regarding his behavior on January 16, 1998. On January 14, 1998, at a CST meeting, Ms. Slaughter asked the Respondent for a cumulative folder on a student. The Respondent had been asked to the meeting because of his lack of cooperation regarding the folder. The Respondent accused Ms. Slaughter of not respecting him in the meeting, and insisted that she ask him again for the folder. The Respondent’s actions were embarrassing to the professionals present at the meeting and showed a lack of professionalism on the part of the Respondent. He was counseled in writing by Ms. Johnson about his conduct. On January 15, 1998, a meeting was held to discuss a student between Ms. Johnson, Mrs. Shabazz, and the Respondent. Mrs. Shabazz indicated that a pertinent document was missing from the student’s folder that could effect his educational program and result in a loss of funding for the school. It was Respondent’s responsibility to maintain the student’s records in the guidance office. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about his responsibilities in maintaining records and their importance to the school. She offered to assist the Respondent in reviewing the cumulative folders prior to their processing. The Respondent was responsible for preparation of materials for and participation in CST meetings on students. The Respondent placed students on the CST agenda without completing the data in their folder. This failure interfered with the proper and timely placement of students, and evidenced an unsatisfactory performance of a basic part of the Respondent’s job. As a result of the complaints about the Respondent’s work and conduct, a Success Plan was developed. This plan outlined areas in which the Respondent was not performing satisfactorily, identified objectives for improving his performance, and strategies to meet the objectives. A team was created to assist the Respondent including Mr. Davis, Ms. Johnson, the Respondent’s supervisor in guidance services, and the professional development facilitator. The Intervention Team had decided that team members should receive a response from the Respondent within three days. This time limit was incorporated in the Respondent’s Success Plan; however, the Respondent did not submit the CST packets within the time limits. In addition, the Respondent’s tone in speaking with the teachers was such that they complained to Ms. Johnson about the Respondent. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about the lateness of his submittals and his interactions which the teachers. The Respondent did not improve his conduct that directly resulted in student’s needs not being met. The Respondent continued to be late to or to miss meetings and scheduled classroom visits. On February 4, 1998, he was late to a classroom visit. He cancelled a classroom visit he had scheduled. He did not follow the weekly calendar of guidance activities as required in his Success Plan. On February 4, 1998, Mr. Davis met with the Respondent to discuss the proper procedures for conducting a CST meeting as a means of assisting the Respondent. On February 6, 1998, Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent about his continued interruption of classes, and the Respondent forgot about a scheduled guidance session and did not attend, until reminded by Ms. Dennis. On February 6, 1998, Ms. Anderson met with the Respondent to discuss the guidance program and to offer assistance to him. She suggested that he use a weekly, hour-by- hour calendar to plan his time and activities. She also counseled with him about using a lesson plan for a small group session to provide a clearly defined objective for the session. Ms. Anderson directed the Respondent to follow-up with her in a week. The Respondent did not follow-up with Ms. Anderson or follow any of her advice. On February 9, 1998, Mr. Davis observed the Respondent conduct a meeting with staff regarding the Florida Writes Test. The Respondent’s conduct of the meeting was unsatisfactory. Issues were left unresolved and staff members were confused about the presentation. Some of the material presented was inconsistent with the information in the manual. Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about these matters, and referred the Respondent to his Success Plan. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to make to two-scheduled classroom visitations. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent missed a scheduled classroom visitation. The Respondent was not following a weekly calendar of activities, and his performance was unsatisfactory and contrary to the Success Plan. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent attempted to counsel the wrong child about the death of the child’s mother, and was prevented from doing so by the teacher. This reflected poorly on the Respondent’s attention to his duties, and his professionalism. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent was provided a list of counselors at other schools who had agreed to let the Respondent attend classroom guidance or CST meetings at their schools. The Respondent was late and showed a lack of interest while attending a classroom guidance session at Lake Forrest. On February 11, 1998, Mr. Davis observed a CST meeting at North Shore. It was evident that the parents had not received the required seven days' notice of the meeting. The Respondent had not conducted the pre-conferences, and had not coordinated the scheduling with the teachers. The Respondent did not have the proper forms in the cumulative folders, and had not conducted any classroom observations in preparation for the CST meeting. In sum, the Respondent’s performance showed a complete lack of competence and knowledge of his duties as a guidance counselor. On February 11, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit. On February 12, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit because he was late in arriving. On February 12, 1998, The Respondent discovered a coding error on the Florida Writes Test. He reported the error to Mr. Davis and accused the teacher of coding the test incorrectly. Davis directed the Respondent to correct the mistake and notify the testing department regarding the possible problem. The Respondent did not correct the test as directed, but placed a note on the box and resealed it to be mailed. The Respondent’s actions violated the testing procedures, and he did not do as he had been directed. On February 17, 1998, Ms. Johnson counseled with the Respondent concerning his failure to respond to student and staff needs. She advised him he was not meeting his Success Plan goals, and students were not receiving services they needed. The Respondent refused to counsel with a developmentally disabled student who had been sent to guidance by his teacher. The proper paper work had been completed for the student to participate in the group counseling session; however, the Respondent refused to allow the student to participate, chasing the student around the room telling him to "get out." The student was confused and embarrassed. Ms. Johnson, who was observing the session, and took charge of the student by having him sit with her, resolved the situation. The Respondent's actions demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the role of a guidance counselor, sensitivity for students, and ability to conduct a class or counseling session. On March 9, 1998, Mr. Davis completed the Respondent’s Annual Performance Evaluation. The evaluation consisted of eight competency areas. The Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in three of the competency areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The facts as presented at hearing confirm the evaluation, and show that the Respondent was clearly incapable of performing his job duties. He lacked knowledge of his duties or how to perform them. He was insensitive to the students' needs and did not meet them. He did not follow the direction of his Principal and did not maintain a professional relationship with his coworkers and superiors. After receiving this evaluation, the Respondent continued in the same pattern of behaviors. He did not prepare and use a calendar of activities. He continued to provide materials late. He refused to assist a parent obtain the proper papers to enable the parent’s child to enroll in another school. He continued to disturb classes. He failed to notify staff of CST meetings at which they needed to attend. He took seven months to complete the paper work to have one child tested. In fact, there were several students who were awaiting CST processing at the end of the year. The Respondent was treated fairly and provided assistance by the school’s administration. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation in 1997-98, the Respondent was administratively transferred to J.E.B. Stuart Middle School the following year for an additional year of observation of in-service training. Carol Daniels is the Principal of Stuart Middle School. She met with the Respondent and advised him that he was starting with a clean slate at her school. School Board Policy required that Ms. Daniels confer privately with the Respondent and develop a Success Plan. She met with the Respondent on August 24, 1998. The Success Plan outlined goals and objectives to improve the Respondent’s performance as a guidance counselor. A support team was created to assist him. Soon after the school year began, Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent about the proper method to request student records. She arranged for him to attend New Counselor Training on or about August 31, 1998. The Respondent was negative and adversarial about being requested to attend the training. He officially complained about the request, but upon review the Regional Superintendent determined that Ms. Daniels’ request was not arbitrary and was appropriate. The Respondent was counseled by Mr. Gilmore, the Vice Principal, on the need to process gifted students under the ESE program. He had failed to process several of these students, and he was given a deadline for processing these students. On September 8, 1998, the Respondent did not exit the building during a fire drill. Ms. Daniels counseled him in writing about the need for everyone to evacuate the building during drills. Mr. Gilmore counseled in writing the Respondent about the lack of lead-time in requesting information about students, and his abruptness and tone in making requests. On October 26, 1998, Linda Bailey requested an ESE/CST Agenda from the Respondent. The Respondent replied he was too busy to provide the information. On October 28, 1998, Ms. Bailey again asked for the information in writing. The Respondent did not provide the information. On October 26, 1998, Ms. Bailey also requested progress reports for the ESE students who would be reevaluated on November 9, 1998. These reports had been used at Stuart Middle School for many years as a best practice strategy. The Respondent advised that he had no intent of providing the progress reports and refused to do so. On October 26, 1998, the Respondent accused the District ESN Admissions Representative of taking ESE forms from his office. His tone and manner were threatening and confrontational. On October 27, 1998, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent that he would have an evaluation and conference on October 30, 1998, pursuant to district guidelines. On October 28, 1998, Charlotte Robbins, ESE Interventionist, met with the Respondent to discuss three students. It was the Respondent’s responsibility to provide information to Ms. Robbins in a timely manner. The Respondent did not provide Ms. Robbins the necessary information prior to the meeting. The Respondent also invited parents to the meeting without advising Ms. Robbins. On November 2, 1998, Norma Peters, a speech therapist, advised Ms. Daniels that she had requested the Respondent to provide her a list of students to be evaluated two to three weeks before CST meetings. The Respondent told Ms. Peters he would not be able to provide the information as requested, although previous guidance counselors had provided Ms. Peters the names three to four weeks in advance of meetings. Although Ms. Daniels spoke with the Respondent about Ms. Peter’s concern, the Respondent did not provide the information as requested. On November 5, 1998, the two eighth grade counselors met with the Respondent to discuss the need for him to be a team member. They raised the fact that he did not answer the phone, assist parents, or help the guidance clerk when necessary. They also advised him to improve his communication with the ESE teachers, CST members, speech pathologist, and interventionist. A CST meeting was held on November 9, 1998, and only half the parents had been noticed and invited to come to the meeting. The Respondent had been responsible for contacting the parents in compliance with district policies. This failure prevented the CST team from addressing the needs of students. Not only did it potentially deny students services, it frustrated teachers, staff, and parents. On November 24, 1998, the Respondent interrupted class instruction by bringing a parent into the class who had missed an earlier appointment with the teacher. On November 25, 1998, Kathee Cook telephoned the Respondent regarding contacting children for the December 9, 1998, CST meeting. The Respondent refused to contact the parents of the students because ESE procedures required that Ms. Cook contact him seven days prior to the designated date. Ms. Cook reported this to Ms. Daniels, who discussed it with the Respondent, explaining that the requirement was for at least seven days notice. Ms. Daniels advised him that he was responsible for notifying parents for CST meetings, and his position potentially jeopardized notice to the parents as required by district policy. Ms. Daniels directed the Respondent to give the Vice Principal all of the parental notices by December 2, 1998. On December 2, 1998, the Respondent gave Mr. Gilmore ten notice letters; however, he did not provide notices to eleven other parents. The Respondent excused his failure by asserting his interpretation of the seven-day rule. On November 25, 1998, Ms. Daniels advised the Respondent that he had made little improvement in his performance. She discussed with him performance of his duties; and being courteous and respectful to faculty, staff, and parents. The Respondent did not accept the evaluation and was confrontational and adversarial with Ms. Daniels. He refused Ms. Daniels' offer of assistance. On or about January 5, 1999, the Respondent placed seven notice letters to parents in Mr. Gilmore’s box for the January 11, 1999, CST meeting. Not only were the letters late, if intended for the January 11th meeting, but they were addressed to the parents of children being staffed in the January 22, 1999, meeting. The Respondent failed to discontinue ESE services to a student contrary to the parent’s request on three separate occasions, to include at least one request in writing. The Respondent’s failure resulted in the matter being re-assigned to the chair of the guidance department to discontinue the services in accordance with the parent’s wishes. The Respondent left the campus without following the procedures for leaving early. These requirements had been explained during orientation and were in the teachers’ handbook. Ms. Daniels had to notify the Respondent in writing of his oversight. On January 25, 1999, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent pursuant to the collective bargaining that his work performance was unsatisfactory. He was advised that his performance in Competencies 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 needed improvement by March 15, 1999. On February 2, 1999, the Respondent was notified that this memorandum would be placed in his personnel file. The Respondent met with parents who were not enrolled in Stuart Middle School during the middle of the school day. Ms. Daniels advised him in writing on February 11, 1999, that this was inappropriate, and he should limit meeting to parents or students enrolled or engaged in enrolling at Stuart. On March 10, 1999, the Respondent made a presentation to an ESE class. His Success Plan required him to schedule presentations during Advisor/Advisee time period. The Respondent’s presentation was arbitrary and he did not seek assistance from his support team. On March 11, 1999, Ms. Daniels completed the Respondent’s annual evaluation. The evaluation addressed nine competency areas. Th Respondent received an unsatisfactory in five of the nine areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The Respondent’s performance in Competency 1 (ability to plan and deliver instruction), Competency 2 (demonstrates knowledge of subject matter), Competency 4 (shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school climate), Competency 8 (demonstrates a commitment to professional growth), and Competency 9 (shows evidence of professional characteristics) was unsatisfactory. Not only was his performance unsatisfactory, he continued to be unwilling to accept support and assistance. He failed to comply with many areas of his Success Plan and failed to perform his duties. On March 17, 1999, the Respondent interrupted Mrs. Bascombe’s class. Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent in writing about class interruptions, and how to handle situations by checking the master schedule and placing notices in teacher mailboxes. On March 23, 1999, Ms. Daniels relieved the Respondent of his responsibilities for ESE students because of his poor performance and its impact on the students' welfare. He had failed to timely notify parents. He had failed to communicate with parents, the staff, faculty and the district. His failures had adversely affected the operations of the ESE program. The Respondent was assigned to handle seventh grade non-exceptional education students. Ms. Daniels had to direct the Respondent in writing to relinquish the ESE forms to his successor. On April 20, 1999, after being relieved of his ESE duties, he met with the mother of an ESE student who was then receiving services from his successor. The Respondent was treated fairly at Stuart Middle School. All of the personnel were ready and willing to provide him assistance. He was negative, and refused to co-operate or perform his duties as directed. On May 19, 1999, the Respondent was notified by the Superintendent that he was charged with professional incompetence. He was advised that he would be discharged from the Duval County School System if the charge was sustained by the School Board. He was advised of his right to request a hearing within two days of receipt of the letter dated May 19, 1999. On June 15, 1999, Ms. Daniels provided John Heavner, Director of Professional Standards, written notice that the Respondent had not completed the requirements of his Success Plan. The Respondent requested a formal hearing by letter on July 10, 1999. Notwithstanding that this was late, he was afforded a hearing. On August 5, 1999, the Respondent was notified that he would be suspended without pay effective August 12, 1999. The Respondent was advised that the suspension would be considered at the September 7, 1999, regular meeting of the School Board. The Respondent is charged with incompetence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered denying the Respondent’s disciplinary appeal and demands set forth in his pleadings, and dismissing the Respondent for incompetence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Lashanda R. Johnson, Esquire City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bobby G. Palmore 863 Poydras Lane, West Jacksonville, Florida 32218 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 321399-0400
The Issue Whether Jessie M. Mitchell should be discharged from her employment as a teacher in the Duval County public school system for professional incompetency as set forth in Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, 1941 Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenure Act")?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was licensed as a public school teacher by the State of Florida. Her license was current and in full force and effect. Ms. Mitchell was licensed to teach in early childhood education. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was employed as a tenured teacher by the Board. Ms. Mitchell received a Bachelor of Science degree from Edward Waters in 1962 and a Masters degree from Florida A & A University in 1965. During the 1985-1986 school year, Ms. Mitchell was assigned as a teacher at S. P. Livingston Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Livingston") in Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Strauss was the principal at Livingston during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Strauss had been the principal charged with evaluating Ms. Mitchell during the 1982-1983, 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 school years. Mr. Strauss had given Ms. Mitchell an overall satisfactory rating for these years. Ms. Mitchell received satisfactory ratings for the 1980 through 1985 school years. She did not receive an unsatisfactory rating until the 1985-1986 school year. During the 1985-1986 school year Mr. Strauss observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on four or five occasions. On February 14, 1986, Mr. Strauss extended the end of Ms. Mitchell's evaluation period for the 1985-1986 school year from March 15, 1986, the usual evaluation date, to May 2, 1986. In-service cadre were also requested to assist Ms. Mitchell improve her performance. John Williams was the primary in-service cadre member who provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Williams observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on April 18, 1986 and May 22, 1986. After each observation, Mr. Williams met with Ms. Mitchell and discussed his observations. Written suggestions for improvement were also presented to Ms. Mitchell by Mr. Williams. Ms. Mitchell was also given the opportunity to observe other teachers. In addition to Mr. Williams, Cheryl Schang, Marilyn Russell and Carolyn Love provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams and Ms. Russell conducted a help session on planning and curriculum for Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell did not cooperate fully in the efforts of Mr. Williams and other in-service cadre members to assist her. She missed several meetings which had been scheduled with cadre members. Ms. Love observed Ms. Williams for approximately five hours. Based upon her observations, Ms. Love pointed out deficiencies and discussed ways of correcting those deficiencies with Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams provided Ms. Mitchell with language experience reading materials, teacher improvement packets and behavior management material in an effort to improve her performance as a teacher. Mr. Williams and Mr. Strauss developed a Professional Development Plan for Ms. Mitchell. The Professional Development Plan provided objectives and suggestions designed to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her performance as a teacher. The Professional Development Plan was provided to Ms. Mitchell in April, 1986. It was not probable, nor was it anticipated, however, that Ms. Mitchell would complete the goals set out in the Professional Development Plan before the 1985-1986 school year ended. It was anticipated that the Professional Development Plan would be followed by Ms. Mitchell during the 1986- 1987 school year. The Professional Development Plan developed for Ms. Mitchell was adequate to assist Ms. Mitchell to improve her teaching performance. Ms. Mitchell did not carry out the objectives and suggestions contained in the Professional Development Plan during the 1985-1986 school year or the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given a written evaluation for the 1985-1986 school year by Mr. Strauss on May 2, 1986. Ms. Mitchell was evaluated unsatisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was notified by certified mail on May 16, 1986, that her performance as a teacher during the 1985-1986 school year had not been satisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was informed that she had the right to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell elected to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. She was assigned to teach kindergarten at Richard L. Brown Sixth Grade Center (hereinafter referred to as "R. L. Brown") for the 1986-1987 school year. William Permenter was the principal at R. L. Brown. In August, 1986, Mr. Permenter and Ms. Mitchell had a pre-planning conference. During this conference, the Professional Development Plan developed by Mr. Strauss and Mr. Williams for Ms. Mitchell was discussed with her and modified. Mr. Permenter made numerous suggestions to Ms. Mitchell to assist her in improving her teaching performance during the 1986-1987 school year. During the 1986-1987 school year Mr. Permenter observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on at least nine occasions. Conferences were held with Ms. Mitchell following these observations. Mr. Permenter also set out in writing suggestions intended to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her teaching performance. Mr. Permenter's written suggestions to Ms. Mitchell contained clear and detailed concerns with Ms. Mitchell's performance. In October, 1986, Mr. Permenter gave Ms. Mitchell an interim evaluation of unsatisfactory. On January 30, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was informed by Mr. Permenter that she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year unless she demonstrated an acceptable level of teaching performance by March 15, 1987. In March, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was given an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year by Mr. Permenter. During the 1986-1987 school year the primary in-service cadre member who assisted Ms. Mitchell was James Constande. Mr. Constande observed Ms. Mitchell on at least six occasions, conducted conferences with Ms. Mitchell, made suggestions to her and provided her with written materials designed to assist her in improving her teaching performance. Five of Mr. Constande's six observations were scheduled with the permission of Ms. Mitchell. Jayne Owens, another in-service cadre member, also assisted Ms. Mitchell. No observations were conducted by in-service cadre from September 27, 1986, through November 25, 1986 and from November 26, 1986, through January 21, 1987, because of Ms. Mitchell's reluctance to agree to such observations. On March 23, 1987, Ms. Mitchell told Mr. Constande that she did not want to continue with classroom observations. Mr. Constande contacted Ms. Mitchell in April and May of 1987, at least twice each month. Ms. Mitchell refused to allow any classroom observations. In-service cadre members encouraged Ms. Mitchell to contact them if she needed any additional assistance. Ms. Mitchell did so only on a few occasions. Jayne Owens, an in-service cadre member during the 1986-1987 school year, conducted class while Ms. Mitchell observed. During the 1986-1987 school year Ms. Mitchell believed that Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre members were not trying to help her. This attitude was reinforced by advice Ms. Mitchell received from counsel for the Duval County Teachers' Union. Ms. Mitchell's attitude about Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre deteriorated after she received an unsatisfactory rating for the 1986-1987 school year. She refused any further assistance from the in-service cadre. The unsatisfactory ratings which Ms. Mitchell received for the 1985- 1986 and 1986-1987 school years were based upon her deficiencies in the general areas of classroom management and teaching effectiveness. Ms. Mitchell's classroom management deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to maintain order in the classroom and school corridors; (b) failure to maintain an attractive, organized classroom (Ms. Mitchell did improve her performance in this area, however); (c) failure to keep students on- task by engaging in conversation unrelated to the subject of her class; (d) failure to maintain effective behavior management techniques such as the use positive reinforcement to avoid negative behavior; (e) failure to stop students who interrupted by calling out; (f) failure to explain the standard of behavior she expected; (g) failure to control the noise level; (h) failure to monitor rules and to timely issue desists orders; (i) failure to identify and discipline students actually causing disruptions; (j) failure to stop children from chewing on pencils, which may be a health hazard; and (k) failure to insure that usable school materials were picked up off the floor to avoid their being sweep up and thrown away. Ms. Mitchell's teaching deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to explain the purpose of lessons at the beginning of a class and to give a review at the end of the class to reinforce what had been taught; (b) failure to provide an explanation when moving from one subject to the next; (c) failure to use correct grammar; (d) failure to give praise; (e) failure to organize the classroom effectively into learning areas; (f) failure to correctly mark report cards; (g) failure to manage time properly, resulting in a loss of momentum; (h) failure to have materials and teaching aides ready to start class; (i) failure to select subject matter of a film suitable for her students; (j) failure to keep lesson plans in accordance with district guidelines; (k) failure to assign or prepare sufficient tasks for students; (1) failure to organize instructions; (m) failure to stop unison responses; (n) failure to be familiar with subject of a film; (o) failure to avoid providing too much information to students; and (p) failure to accurately present subject matter. Ms. Mitchell's deficiencies were observed over two school years by at least six observers on several occasions. Ms. Mitchell was unable to produce current lesson plans in May, 1986. Ms. Mitchell did not adequately plan. Therefore, she was unable to provide an effective learning environment and she was unable to reduce discipline problems. Ms. Mitchell failed to have a series of groups of students and a series of activities for each group throughout a school day. Ms. Mitchell failed to properly maintain cumulative folders during the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given clear and detailed statements of her deficiencies throughout the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years. The Superintendent of Duval County Public Schools brought charges against Ms. Mitchell seeking to discharge her for professional incompetency by certified letter dated May 19, 1987. The charges were based upon Ms. Mitchell's teaching performance during the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years, the two years for which Ms. Mitchell received unsatisfactory evaluations. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a hearing in conformance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a speedy and public hearing, informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her, confronted by accusing witnesses, given the opportunity to subpoena witnesses and papers and allowed to secure assistance of counsel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Mitchell be dismissed as a tenured teacher within the Duval County public school system. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4581 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3. 3 46. 4 38 5 39 and 41. 6 40-41. 7 6 and 9. 8 17. 9 Hereby accepted. 10-11 20. 12 11. 13 18. 14-15 21. 16-17 Irrelevant. 18 11. 19 17. 20 13. 21 12. 22 14. 23 13. 24 42. Hereby accepted. See 40. 27 16. 28 43. 29 42. 30 34. 31 15. 32 See 39. 33 19. 34 22. 35 23. 36 24-25. 37 18, 38 Hereby accepted. 39 26. 40 28. 41-42 Irrelevant. 43 45. 44 27. 45 Hereby accepted. 46-47 30. 48-49 Hereby accepted. 50 31. 51 30. 52 32. 53 35. 54 Hereby accepted. 55 32 and 37. 56 33. 57 See 40. 58-61 Hereby accepted. 62 44. 63 36. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant. 66 32 and 37. 67 36. 68-69 Hereby accepted. 70 45. 71 Cumulative. 72 47. 73 48. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 3. 3 46. 4 5. 5 6. 6 10. 7-8 21. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11-13 7. 14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15-16 Hereby accepted. 17 17. 18 24. 19 23. Irrelevant. See 25. 22 27. 23 29. 24-29 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 30 8. 31-43 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 44 Hereby accepted. 45 4. 46 8. 47 Hereby accepted. 48 36. 49-52 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Dolores R. Gahan Assistant Counsel City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth Vickers, Esquire Suite 1 437 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herb A. Sang, Superintendent School Board of Duval County 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
