The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate (Division) was the state agency in Florida responsible for licensing real estate brokers and salespersons and for the regulation of the real estate profession in this state. Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker, but his license had been suspended effective October 13, 1996 On May 17, 1994, after Respondent had requested but failed to appear at an informal hearing on his alleged misconduct, the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) issued a Final Order in which it ordered Respondent be reprimanded and pay a $500.00 administrative fine within thirty days of the filing of the order on pain of suspension of his broker's license until the fine was paid. In addition, the Commission placed Respondent's license on probation for one year with the requirement that, inter alia, he enroll in and satisfactorily complete a sixty hour post-licensure education course for brokers within one year of the filing of the order. Though in collateral communications to Petitioner's counsel, to an investigator, Ms. May, and to the prior Judge assigned in this matter, all of which are a part of the file in this case, Respondent claimed not to have received the Final Order in issue, Mr. James, another investigator for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), in his visit to Respondent's office on June 28, 1995, found a copy of the order in Respondent's office files. The prior misconduct by Respondent bears on the instant case only in so far as it supports the action taken with respect to it by the Commission. As it appears, Respondent failed to file his monthly escrow account reconciliation on the required form though he had received and had a copy of the required form in his file. He claims, in his correspondence, and there is no evidence to refute his claim, that because of his poor memory at the advanced age of eighty years, he forgot the new form had become required and continued to use the previously approved form he had used over his prior twenty-eight years in the real estate business. It appears that when that discrepancy was found by the former investigator, Ms. Mays, Respondent was issued a citation calling for a fine of $100.00 and 30 hours of continuing education, but considering that proposed penalty too severe for a "minor" offense resulting from a lapse of memory, especially when no loss was occasioned to any client, he rejected the citation and demanded a hearing. He then did not attend the informal hearing scheduled. Thereafter, the commission entered the Final Order alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint, the terms of which were described above. The required $500.00 administrative fine has not been paid nor has the required post-licensing education been completed. Respondent still contends the fine is too severe and because of his age and inability to drive at night, he is unable to take the required course. On June 28, 1995, Mr. James, an investigator for the Department, acting on a report that Respondent was continuing to operate his brokerage even though his license had been suspended, went to the Respondent's office located at 56 Harvard Street in Englewood, Florida. At that address Mr. James found Respondent operating two businesses from the same office. One was Englewood Realty and the other was a dry ice company. During the interview held on June 28, 1995, Respondent admitted he had received the Final Order but considered it unfair. Respondent also admitted he was actively engaged in the practice of real estate and wanted to keep the brokerage open until he could sell his own property, and "just in case something else came up." While Mr. James was at the Respondent's office, Respondent was visited by a female representative of an advertising publication who spoke with him about his advertisement for the sale of some real estate. Also during the visit, as James recalls, Respondent received at least one telephone call which seemed to relate to the sale of real property. In both cases, however, it appeared to Mr. James that Respondent was referring to his own property. James did not discover any reference to sales or dealing relating to property owned by anyone other than Respondent. James also reviewed Respondent's books for the brokerage and it appeared to him that Respondent was operating at a loss. Nonetheless, at no time did Respondent fail to identify himself as a real estate broker either to the advertising representative or in response to the telephone call. In light of Respondent's refusal to comply with the earlier suspension, his apparent unwillingness to cease operations as directed until it suited his purpose, and his unfavorable financial position as to the brokerage, the Petitioner recommends only that Respondent's license as a real estate broker be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order in this case revoking Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond J. McGinn Englewood Realty 56 Harvard Street Englewood, Florida 34223 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held active Teaching Certificate 485203 with certification in Political Science and History. She is a hard worker, who, when orphaned, put herself through school, achieving a Master's Degree in Social Justice from Lewis University. Respondent was employed by Petitioner School Board as a social studies teacher at Miami Central Senior High School for the 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983- 84 school years. During Respondent's first year with the Dade County school system, 1981-82, she was formally observed by her principal, Mr. Hal Guinyard, and other administrators. Respondent had problems with discipline of tardy students, absenteeism, classroom management and noise level control in the classroom and with devising and carrying through variations of instruction. On Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82, Respondent was recommended for employment but was found lacking in the area of classroom management. The specific observations leading up to this evaluation were that: Several students entered and left the room at will, other students remained in the halls during class time, some students in the classroom disturbed others in Respondent's class and even nearby classes with irrelevant and extraneous discussions and excess noise. There was excess noise from the late arrivals and those in the halls, too. The Respondent rolled on copy work from the chalkboard or text book with minimal student conversational feedback. Mr. Guinyard suggested to Respondent that she minimize busy work, create an orderly classroom environment, and explore alternative instructional techniques. On October 26, 1982, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal William Matlack, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of objective analysis. Mr. Matlack rated Respondent as unsatisfactory in the area of techniques of instruction. Excessive time was used by Respondent in preparing her students to take a test. Mr. Matlack prescribed help for Respondent in the area of techniques of instruction by assigning Respondent to observe three effective teachers and list four teacher activities, three student activities, and to analyze the time spent in organizing the class and in instructional activities. He also suggested that she read the TADS chapter on acceptable classroom procedures and teaching techniques and attached 33 pages of reading material to her evaluation, giving suggestions for classroom management, effective planning, techniques of instruction, and techniques of student-teacher relationships. He further advised Respondent of an in-service course in techniques of instruction. While Mr. Matlack did not rate Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management, he found that she still did not control her class for all the reasons previously noted by Mr. Guinyard. Rather than rate her as unacceptable in this area, he directed a memorandum dated October 29, 1982, to Respondent's attention indicating problem areas that could lead to further discipline problems if uncorrected. One of the problems was that Respondent was selling doughnuts for the athletic department between classes, and Mr. Matlack made her aware of the fact that students would be tempted to eat in other teachers' classes and that this was against the school rules. Respondent also was admonished concerning the security danger existing in her leaving money and keys lying about. On February 28, 1983, Respondent was again formally observed in the classroom by Mr. Matlack using the TADS and was found to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because the topics were not covered thoroughly and there was too much digression. There were 11 topics discussed and few were related to each other. Some of the areas were irrelevant, e.g., the importance of obtaining a good lawyer if one is going to win a lawsuit, how to obtain a house in Chicago, and the five black Presidents in the United States. Only 6 minutes were spent on how a bill becomes a law. Only 25 minutes were spent on the prescribed curriculum topics of cabinet duties, income tax, social security, Veterans' Administration, Federal Housing Authority, Health and Rehabilitative Services, and the Equal Rights Amendment, and the irrelevant topics already mentioned. Techniques of instruction was rated unacceptable because Respondent presented the material in a lecture form. The assignment on the board was very similar in technique (copy work for listing and defining terms, outlining a chapter) to what was used during the October 1982 observation; content was, however, different. The students were not ready for the assignment. There appeared to be no scope and sequence to the lesson. The lesson was very disjointed. The students were not involved when questions were asked, and their response was minimal. No effort was made to identify those students not participating or off task nor to involve all of them in the lesson. One or two students carried the class. Respondent did not appear to be effectively using the suggestions made by Mr. Matlack during his prior observation. Mr. Matlack explained to Respondent the need to create inspiration, create interesting presentations, move around the classroom utilizing various techniques and media, direct questions for the purpose of involving students, and for motivational use of questions geared toward individual abilities of respective students. He recommended Respondent re-read the TADS booklet that he had prescribed before. Respondent was rated "improved" in keeping grades for a variety of types of assignments in her grade book, but she still was not making informal assessments of her students' learning. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because she was not involving the students in instruction. The students appeared to do as they pleased. The classroom still did not present a neat and orderly atmosphere. The students seemed surprised at Respondent's attempt to enforce rules and regulations. This indicated to Mr. Matlack that the control was for his benefit, being implemented only for the instant period of observation. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended Respondent for continued employment, but rated her overall unacceptable. He found her unacceptable for the year in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She would continue on prescription (prescribed remediation efforts). Mr. Guinyard testified that he gave Respondent an extra year on prescription and brought in more help so that she might yet improve. During the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended that Respondent observe other teachers and that she contact Mr. Hanson for help, which she did. Mr. Hanson is the Social Studies Supervisor for Dade County Schools. Mrs. Felicia Accornero (hereinafter Mrs. Mendez), is Assistant Principal for Curriculum (APC). She is not a trained social studies teacher but is certified to teach biology, chemistry, and gifted children. She is certified to work as an administrator, supervisor, or guidance counselor. Additionally, Mrs. Mendez discussed social studies concepts with other social studies teachers in an effort to be of more assistance to Respondent. On October 18, 1983, Respondent was officially observed in the classroom by Mrs. Mendez. Using the TADS analysis system, Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because there were substantial errors in her presentation: incorrect spellings, incorrectly defined terminology, and unnecessary use of lay terms rather than formal terms. Mrs. Mendez' perception was that neither the students nor she, personally, understood the lesson as represented by Respondent. Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent work with her. Mrs. Mendez also prescribed particular pages from the TADS prescription manual, which included a detailed subject matter inventory. This was a checklist so that Respondent could understand the different areas where she could become knowledgeable so that her subject matter would be more accurate and more relevant to the students. Mrs. Mendez discussed subject matter with Respondent and discussed one lesson a week with Respondent prior to its presentation. At this time, Mrs. Mendez also rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because there were too many delays in the class due to the same deficiencies observed previously by Messrs. Guinyard and Matlack, specifically repetitive tardies, disruption by tardies noisy off-task irrelevant extraneous discussions among students during teaching, 50% of the time spent in opening and closing class and other non-instructional activities, lack of discipline, disorganized classroom and disorganized lesson presentation by Respondent. The lesson plan which was in Respondent's 1982-83 lesson plan book for October 18, 1983, was not the one which Mrs. Mendez observed in the classroom. She was give a separate lesson plan. Mrs. Mendez prescribed a TADS chapter on structuring classroom time so that the teacher moves from one activity to another without delay. Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with both her and the department chairman, Mrs. Consuelo Pino, to improve Respondent's classroom management. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because Respondent was not following a sequence, was not clarifying directions and explanations when necessary, did not give students background information that was necessary for them to understand the topic, and did not perceive when her students did not understand the lesson. Mrs. Mendez prescribed reading a section from the TADS chapter on sequencing lessons and also prescribed help from herself and Mrs. Pino. Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent to help her place her lesson plans in an understandable sequence. At least weekly for the next ten weeks, Mrs. Mendez helped Respondent. Mrs. Mendez provided Respondent with a book on questioning techniques, helped Respondent organize her room, showed her how to position her desk so that she would have a better view of the students, explained how a seating chart would help her keep accurate attendance quickly, explained how to utilize student folders so that materials would be easily accessible and so that the classroom and instructional techniques and procedures would accordingly be better organized. The prescription deadline was extended to accommodate Respondent. On November 8, 1983, a conference for the record was held with Mr. Mathew V. Lawrence, Mrs. Mendez, and a field representative of United Teachers of Dade. Mr. Lawrence had been Assistant Principal the first two years Respondent taught at Miami Central Senior High and became Principal there for the 1983-84 school year. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the October 18, 1983 observation and the continuing deficiencies. The prescriptions were discussed. The ramifications of continued deficiency were discussed. Respondent's responsibility for basic skills such as reading and spelling was discussed. Respondent was reminded that she was responsible not only for her subject matter, (history, social studies, political science) but for students' basic skills (reading, writing, spelling, grammar). 24.. On November 12, 1983, Mrs. Mendez again formally observed Respondent in the classroom using the TADS analysis technique. Respondent was aware that she would be observed that day. Respondent showed some improvement over the prior observation in that she presented some accurate information for most of the period; however, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning because her objective was too simple and she did not list activities and assessment techniques, as required. Thereafter, Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent on writing lesson plans and helped her write lesson plans. Mrs. Mendez found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because Respondent made inaccurate statements, used incorrect grammar, and gave opinions rather than presenting both sides of an issue to students. Mrs. Pino made the same observation. During some parts of the lesson, it appeared that Respondent did not know what she was talking about. While the students appeared to understand most of the lesson, at times they did not. Mrs. Mendez also concluded that Respondent was not adhering to a structured plan but for this formal observation for the last formal observation Respondent had prepared lesson plans for observation days separate and apart from her normal procedure/plan for non-observation days. To improve Respondent's knowledge of subject matter, Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent review and study the textbook chapters prior to teaching the lesson because it did not appear that Respondent was doing this. Mrs. Mendez also gave Respondent the opportunity to prepare lessons and to explain them to Mrs. Mendez ahead of the time Respondent would present the material to the class so that Mrs. Mendez could monitor whether or not the information would be clearly presented to the class. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction upon much the same grounds as she used to substantiate the unacceptable rating for the categories of preparation and planning and knowledge of the subject matter, all essentially relating back to inadequacy of Respondent's lesson plans, or that the lesson plans were created solely for observation or to satisfy a prescription and were not for actual use. Petitioner's Exhibit 12 does not reflect a specific written prescription in this category, but Mrs. Mendez' oral testimony indicated further emphasis and helpful work on lesson plans was initiated. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Matlack on January 19, 1984. Respondent showed improvement this time but Mr. Matlack noted that Respondent needed to record her students' grades in her grade book more promptly as she received them. He also rated her unacceptable in classroom management primarily because of continued disruptions from tardy arrivals. Mr. Matlack directed Respondent to establish rules and regulations for students about coming into the class on time, bringing the needed materials, staying until the period ends, and prohibiting visitors into the classroom. He gave her specific suggestions on how to make these improvements and provided her with a memorandum outlining the deficiencies and prescribed help. Respondent's lesson plan for January 19, 1984, in Respondent's 1983-84 lesson plan book was only partially covered in the period observed that day by Mr. Matlack. On February 8, 1984, Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management on her midyear annual evaluation for 1983-84. On February 10, 1984, Mr. Lawrence held a second conference for the record with Respondent to discuss her performance assessments to date and his recommendation that she not receive a fourth year of annual contract. He also advised her that if she cleared her deficiencies, he would rescind his recommendation and would recommend a continuing contract. Respondent agreed to a fourth year annual contract. On March 13, 1984, Mr. Lawrence made his first official classroom observation of Respondent according to the TADS and found her to be very deficient. He felt that no teaching and learning were taking place. He observed her to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Mrs. Lawrence found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the definitions she gave for vocabulary words were not accurate and not appropriate. The students did not seem to understand the class work. Respondent was not gearing the lesson for all of her students. The lesson plan in Respondent's 1983-84 plan book for March 13, 1984, was not the plan Mr. Lawrence observed being implemented that date. Mr. lawrence prescribed for Respondent to prepare lesson plans for five days that detailed the sequencing of concepts and how each concept would be explained and implemented. Respondent was to include a minimum of five ideas and concepts and give the cognitive levels covered in each area. Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino were recommended as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students were coming to the room late and being admitted without any evidence they had been detained elsewhere and without reprimand or punishment by Respondent. There was no evidence the students had any knowledge of the correct procedure. Step by step instructions for correcting her classroom management in this area were given to Respondent by Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Tom Shaw later helped her in this area. Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the only two methods she used during the class period were writing definitions for 10 minutes and answering questions from the end of the chapter in the textbook for 45 minutes. The questions at the end of the chapter were unrelated to the vocabulary work. Respondent gave no introduction to the material. There was no evidence of the students understanding the materials, and no opening or closure to the lesson. In order to aid Respondent to improve her techniques of instruction, Mr. Lawrence recommended that Respondent develop a list of at least 10 teaching techniques or suitable teaching methods. He directed her to utilize a minimum of two methods permitting students to actively participate. He directed her to prepare lesson plans for a week that demonstrated these methods and how the students would be involved. He suggested that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino be used as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques based on four student folders selected at random, each of which contained only five test cares and one or two additional sheets of work. The work in the student folders was not representative of what should have been there so late in the school year and therefore students' work was not accurately documented and could not be properly assessed for grading the child. The help that Mr. Lawrence prescribed for Respondent was to prepare two written assessment items per week for three weeks. Each test was to contain a variety of at least three types of questions. He wanted other corrected items such as homework and class work to be contemporaneously placed in student folders. He assigned Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino to help Respondent. Pursuant to Mr. Lawrence's March 13, 1984 prescription, Mrs. Mendez explained to Respondent in a memorandum what was required in the student folders. Subsequently, when Mrs. Mendez reviewed the student folders, she found a student paper consisting of one incomplete sentence fragment graded "A". The student's grammar was not graded (p 14). This one example was clearly contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the instructions for the assignment outlined by Respondent but it still had been graded "excellent." At hearing, Respondent denied that she gave the paper an "A" and asserted that she would require from this particular student two examples the next day. On April 24, 1984, Respondent was formally observed simultaneously by two administrators (Mrs. Mendez and Paul Hanson) and was found by both administrators to be unsatisfactory in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had lesson plans and objectives based on the county curriculum, but was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her plans were not effectively implemented. She did not fill the allocated class time although only about 10% of the planned material was covered. One of the nine listed topics was "Communism." Section 233.064, Florida Statutes, spells out the content and mandates 30 hours for curriculum in "Americanism vs. Communism." On eleven different occasions, Mr. Hanson noted students were totally off task, disruptive and loud, and discussing topics that were not relevant to the lesson on Communism. The students were talking in little groups and in Mr. Hanson's opinion nothing academic was learned by the students during the period and consequently the students might thereby fall short of the statutorily required 30 hours. As a means to help Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent prepare lesson plans for one week and check with the Assistant Principal who would observe the class to see if the plans were implemented. She recommended that Respondent seek help from both herself and Mrs. Pino. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the information that she provided concerning Communism was not accurate. There were a number of errors made by Respondent during the course of the lesson. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent by working with Dan Jones, Social Studies Specialist, during the week of May 11, 1984. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the numerous disruptions, extraneous conversations, and constant movement. Student tardiness was noted yet again. Respondent appeared frustrated but was not able to effectively control the situation and did not take any steps to correct or penalize the tardy students. As a means of helping Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with Mr. Shaw who is the assistant principal that generally monitors attendance and discipline problems. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not deliver the instructional program acceptably in many areas. Also, upon the same grounds, Mr. Hanson prescribed help from Mr. Jones on this element. By memorandum dated May 7, 1984, Mr. Lawrence changed his recommendation for extended annual contract to dismissal because Respondent had failed to remediate her deficiencies and she was now more deficient than when he had observed her in March. Pursuant to Mr. Hanson's prescription of April 24, 1984, Mr. Jones worked with Respondent on May 17, 1984. He brought her material to use and discussed a number of areas: lesson planning and format, techniques, the Dade County balanced curriculum objectives, the possibility of his visiting one of her classes to provide feedback to her about her techniques of instruction, a possible policy of limiting hall passes, a technique for engaging students in group activities, and the need for having at least two activities per class. He brought three books for her to use, Ideals and Ideologies, The Russians, and Practical Methods for the Social Studies. He assisted with her lesson planning for the week of May 21-25, 1984. On May 24, 1984, Mr. Lawrence completed the annual evaluation of Respondent, rating her as deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. This constituted three more unacceptable areas than on her midyear evaluation. Mr. Jones returned to help Respondent on June 4, 1984. Based upon his visitation, he wrote several suggestions for Respondent. Subsequently, when Mr. Jones observed the class, Respondent was attempting to implement some of the recommendations he had made but the presentation was not well structured or organized. Approximately fifty percent of the class period was lost in digressions and expounding of Respondent's personal opinions. Mr. Jones testified that it is appropriate for teachers to get students to express their opinions; however, those opinions should be based on knowledge of the course concepts and should come from the students, rather than from the teacher so as to encourage students to think independently, to make rational decisions, and to not merely absorb their teacher's opinion. In time of confusion, Respondent unduly delayed clarification of instructions. Mr. Jones opined that if he had been a student, he would have had to have asked questions also and in his opinion, the students were being deprived of a minimum acceptable level of instruction. On June 7, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by two administrators (Mr. Hanson and Mr. Shaw) using the TADS analysis system. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Respondent's performance had declined since Mr. Hanson's prior observation. She now was rated as having one acceptable category out of six. Mr. Hanson noted that the "students would have been better off to review without teacher's assistance." Respondent gave incorrect information and was very vague. She made several content errors and confused government forms with economic systems, using the terms synonymously. Mr. Hanson, under the impression that Respondent was still being recommended for a fourth year annual contract, recommended that she take course work over the summer in classroom management and subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because again there were at least nine interruptions of the same kinds as previously observed. However, where previously the Respondent had ignored inappropriate behavior, this time she indulged in a disruptive outburst reprimanding one student very loudly. There was a student in the room who had been withdrawn from school two weeks prior and recently readmitted. In returning this student to the office for a status check, Mr. Shaw missed several minutes of Respondent's class and his observation is somewhat impaired by this absence. It is to Respondent's credit that even during this period of suspension, this particular student sneaked into school to attend her class. At no time were more than half of the students observed to be on task. Mr. Shaw recommended that the Respondent work with Mr. Hanson to improve her classroom management. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there were only passive activities being pursued and there was little feedback from the students. Respondent's technique was ineffective in encouraging class discussion. There was inadequate use of media. Because the lesson was not in proper sequence, it created academic confusion. Again, Mr. Shaw recommended that Respondent seek help from Mr. Hanson. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because of the general lack of respect on the part of the students and because of Respondent's erratic reaction to the student's behavior. The observers prescribed the same help. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no means of assessing whether or not the students were understanding the review process that was taking place. The observers prescribed the same help. In 1983 Respondent was referred to a nine-credit social studies course taught by Mr. Hanson at Nova University as part of the administration's attempts to help her master the subject matter of her course. She cooperated by taking the course but failed it. Complaints of misgraded, missing, and plagiarized papers arose among students in Respondent's classes. Administrators concluded that Respondent lacked an appropriate procedure for receiving, organizing, and monitoring papers for grading purposes. Students and parents complained that no effective teaching was going on and that the disorganization in the classroom even prevented individualized learning. On another occasion, Respondent was informally observed by administrators giving wrong information to students as to the number of municipalities in Dade County. Administrators also observed that her grammar, verb tenses and word choice were not a good example to her students. The undersigned observed this pattern at hearing. At the hearing, Respondent testified to an incorrect number of Florida counties. During her testimony, Respondent used the non-word, "malicy" instead of "malice." She used the word "connotatins" several times in contexts which more properly would have required either the word "confrontations" or "altercations." In no respect was "connotations" an appropriate word selection and Respondent defined the word "connotations" as meaning "disagreements." Respondent contended that her emphasis on rote copying from the board and reading aloud was an appropriate response to large classes the majority of whose members did not possess basic skills. Respondent explained that what her observers perceived as her poor grammar was actually "street talk" she intentionally used to reach culturally deprived students. While these may have been legitimate motivations, they do not excuse Respondent's never having progressed in the use of proper grammar and varied teaching techniques for communication with students when other teachers in the same school were able to do so. Respondent's explanation also does not ring true in light of Respondent's numerous grammatical and content errors during her own testimony. Mrs. Pino, the department head, offered additional help to Respondent during Respondent's three years at Miami Central Senior High School. She discussed classroom management, ways to diversify teaching, and other problems which came up on a daily basis. She discussed parent contacts in order to help with classroom management. She gave Respondent additional copies of some papers that Respondent has lost. She reviewed lesson plans with Respondent many times and on occasion would review a lesson plan with her prior to an administrator's observation. Pursuant to Mrs. Mendez' request, Mrs. Pino observed a whole period in order to help Respondent learn how to make smooth transitions from one classroom activity to another. Respondent testified that she encouraged students to borrow books from her even if it meant looking the other way when she knew they were removing them. Loaning or giving books away might be altruistic upon Respondent's part, and indeed, helpful to students' learning the subject matter or developing a love of history, reading, etc., but Respondent's practice of encouraging the fantasy of theft for learning's sake is hardly in the best interests of the child or the teaching profession. Respondent, a Negro, contended that it was her attempts to instill in her students pride in their Black heritage which resulted in her negative ratings. She based this primarily upon body language of Mr. Matlack she said she observed when she showed him the pamphlet "The Five Negro Presidents" (R-1). She claimed there existed a rehearsed "plot" by all the Petitioner's witnesses on the basis of either her minority heritage views or on the basis of her election as a steward in the union, United Teachers of Dade. This explanation is not credible. While "Black History" may certainly be a valid part or enrichment of a high school social studies curriculum, it cannot legitimately usurp all of the class time properly allotted to prescribed curriculum. Moreover, inaccurate history, even inaccurate Black History, serves no valid purpose. The undersigned finds that it was not this theme on a single occasion which observers were concerned with in rating Respondent, but the inaccuracy and confusion of her presentation of that theme which resulted in her negative rating on the one occasion to which she refers. Also this pamphlet was not used at every observation and cannot be attributed as the incentive for so many negative ratings by so many different observers. It is also noted that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino are of Hispanic background. Although Respondent has responded to criticism positively, was eager to improve, and cooperated readily in all of her observers' suggestions, she still never achieved the standards of competency required and expected by the Dade County School Board. This is so despite extensive efforts of her colleagues to help Respondent reach acceptable performance standards. Respondent has failed to teach efficiently and faithfully due to her failure to communicate and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of face and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171 finding Respondent guilty of incompetency, affirming her suspension, dismissing her from her employment with the Dade County School Board, and denying her any claim for back pay. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171A finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity and revoking her Florida Teacher's Certificate for ten years, subject to reinstatement as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 27th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building, Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s application for continuing education course approval should be granted by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Board of Chiropractic Medicine, is the state agency responsible for the licensure and regulation of chiropractic medicine in the State of Florida. Section 456.013(6) and Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. The Board has the responsibility to approve continuing education courses sponsored by chiropractic colleges. Section 460.408, Florida Statutes. Continuing education providers established through medical osteopathic or chiropractic colleges send their initial courses to the Board for approval. Ordinarily, once the course is approved they become an approved provider and do not send subsequent continuing courses to the Board for approval. Petitioner is an approved continuing education course provider. On July 24, 2001, Petitioner submitted an application of an online course to the Board for approval. The submitted course, ChiroCredit.com, is a 13-hour course consisting of nine regular hours, two HIV/AIDS hours, and two risk management hours. With the application, Petitioner submitted a letter dated July 19, 2001, by Drs. Richard Saporito and Paul Powers, Petitioner’s representative. The letter requested the Board “to review the issue of acceptance of distance based online education credits for Chiropractors continuing education requirements in the State of Florida.” On August 22, 2001, Stephanie Baxley, Regulatory Specialist for the Board, sent a memorandum to Dr. Gene Jenkins, D.C., chair of the Continuing Education Committee, requesting continuing education review. Dr. Jenkins signed and marked the memorandum "approved" on August 29, 2001. On the same date, Dr. Jenkins also indicated approval of an online course offered by another provider, Logan College. Ms. Baxley wrote to Dr. Richard Saporito notifying him that ChiroCredit.com had been approved for continuing education credit. Vicki Grant is a programs operations administrator with the Department of Health. Her responsibilities include managing the licensing and discipline of four professions, including chiropractic medicine. Ms. Grant received a phone call from Dr. Jenkins who informed her that he had made a mistake by indicating approval of the online course offered by Petitioner. In response to his inquiry as to how to proceed, she advised him to notify the continuing education staff, tell them he had made a mistake, and ask that the matter be presented to the full board. She also spoke to Sharon Guilford regarding the matter. Ms. Guilford is Ms. Baxley's supervisor. Sharon Guilford is a program operations administrator with the Department of Health. One of her responsibilities is serving as the administrator for the continuing education section that consists of six professions, including chiropractic medicine. Ms. Guilford and Ms. Grant spoke about Dr. Jenkins' phone call. On September 11, 2001, Ms. Guilford wrote a note on a copy of the August 29, 2001 letter from Ms. Baxley to Dr. Saporito that stated as follows: "Per Dr. Jenkins-course should've never been approved. Send letter correcting the error of approval." On September 11, 2001, Ms. Baxley sent a letter to Dr. Saporito advising him that the approval letter of August 29, 2001, was sent in error and that the Board would take up the matter at their October 2001 meeting.1/ The Board did address the matter at their October 1, 2001 meeting which was held via teleconference. Dr. Saporito and Dr. Paul Powers spoke to the Board on behalf of Petitioner. During the last part of the Board's consideration of this matter, various board members expressed concern that the Board did not have enough information to vote for an approval of the course and discussed having an opportunity to receive more information. After much discussion, the Board unanimously voted to deny Petitioner's application for approval of the course for continuing education purposes. At the same meeting, the Board also denied an application of Logan College to provide continuing education via an online course. The Notice of Intent to Deny states the grounds for denial: As grounds for denial, the Board found that the course did not meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B2- 13.004. Specifically, the rule does not contemplate the awarding of credit for virtual courses or those taken online by use of a computer. The Board opined that 'classroom hours' as used in the rule means in-person education and not time spent in front of a computer. The course offered by the applicant is an online offering. Additionally, the Board expressed concerns about the educational merit and security protocols used by online course providers, but welcomes more information regarding these topics. The Board has never approved an online, homestudy, or video-taped presentation for continuing education course credit. The courses presented to the Board by Petitioner and Logan College were the first online courses to be presented for Board approval. The Board interprets its applicable rule, which requires each licensee to obtain 40 classroom hours of continuing education, to require live and in-person classroom hours. Petitioner offered the testimony of two expert witnesses, Dr. Terry Heller and Dr. Joseph Boyle. Dr. Heller has knowledge regarding theories of learning and education, but lacks knowledge about chiropractors, chiropractic education, or chiropractic continuing education and does not appear to be very familiar with Petitioner’s particular online course. Dr. Boyle is familiar with both chiropractic continuing education and Petitioner's course. He disagrees with the Board's interpretation that the term "classroom hours" must mean a lecture or live format. However, Dr. Boyle described the broadest definition of "classroom" to be "anywhere, anyplace, at any pace, anytime." He acknowledged that the Board could set up criteria for online courses that differ from the criteria for traditional classrooms. Respondent’s expert witness, Dr. David Brown, noted that most chiropractors practice in isolation and very few have staff privileges at hospitals. In his opinion, a legitimate policy reason for requiring chiropractors to obtain a certain amount of in-person continuing education is that they can “rub shoulders with their peers” and learn from one another. Dr. Brown noted that many states impose restrictions on the number of online hours that may be taken or on the type of licensees who are eligible to receive credit. Dr. Brown interpreted the word "classroom" within the context of the rule containing the requirement of 40 classroom hours of continuing education to mean ". . . to physically sit in a room, in a classroom type environment which could be an auditorium or some other environment, with your peers who are also taking the class in order to obtain course credit. I think that's a traditional type of view." Dr. Brown's interpretation of "classroom" within the context of the Board's rule is more persuasive than those of Petitioner's experts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner’s application for continuing education course approval.2/ DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 5th day of March, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Jay S. Markley, was employed as a teacher of mathematics at Osceola High School (OHS) , Kissimmee, Florida, under a continuing contract. A continuing contract conveys tenure status upon the teacher holding it. Mr. Markley had been employed at OHS for approximately nine years. During that period, in addition to being a teacher, he has held the positions of swimming coach, director of athletics, and chairman of the faculty council. Mr. Floyd J. Scott, Jr., was principal of OHS during the 1982-83 school year and had served as such for four years. When he first arrived at OHS, he found a poor environment. Students were scoring low on the achievement tests, a small percentage of graduates was going on to college; discipline was poor, student participation in sports and other extracurricular activities was low, and the teams fielded by the school did poorly. His charter, upon assuming the principal's position, was to bring up the school standards and performance. Among the several things he did to create a favorable change was to, during the 1982-83 school year, place emphasis on the need for teachers to file lesson plans, something that had not been done for quite a while in the past. During the first week of school, he began his programs of emphasis with a low key approach. He would mention the need for them to be filed at faculty meetings, included the requirement that they be filed in the teachers' handbook given to each teacher at the beginning of the school year, and hired a coordinator to work the problem, Ms. Shirley S. Phillips. As time went on throughout the year, more and more emphasis was placed on the subject. Lesson plans are used by teachers to coordinate the information to be passed on to the students. They are a continuity document to be used by substitute teachers to work from in the event the regular teacher is absent. They are used by administrators to insure that required topics are covered, as verification of compliance with the county's scope and sequence plan, as part of the evaluation of teacher performance. Of great importance is the fact that they are considered as an evaluation factor by the Southern Association of Colleges and Universities in its evaluation of high schools for certification. An absence of certification makes it extremely difficult for a graduate of the unaccredited school to gain admission to a college or university outside the State of Florida. The term "scope and sequence" is used to show that curriculum materials are tied together, the order and relationship of topics. The lesson plans are to insure that the daily activities of the teachers fulfill the scope and sequence goals. They are like a road map -- the ways to achieve the tasks set out in the scope and sequence. Rule 5.4.6 of the Osceola County School Board requires teachers to follow a system of unit and lesson planning and specifically provides that the mere citation of text and workbook pages is not considered an adequate lesson plan. Repeated mention is made of lesson plans in the teachers' handbook supplied to each teacher at the beginning of each school year. Respondent recalls receiving his in August or September, 1982, and was also aware of the requirements of Rule 5.4.6. The handbook, at Page 6, requires detailed lesson plans to be in the substitute folder and, at Page 44, states that required "lesson plans will be submitted for review each Friday for the next week" to the curriculum coordinator, at first Ms. Zey, and later Ms. Phillips. Respondent knew of these requirements and knew that, except for two lesson plans submitted at the beginning of the 1982-83 school year, he failed to file any more for the rest of the school year, though he contends he was preparing lesson plans, his style, throughout the school year. Ms. Shirley Phillips became curriculum coordinator at Osceola High School on February 1, 1983. One of the jobs given to her was to collect and coordinate lesson plans which she monitored through a check-off system originally used by her predecessor. Prior to that, however, on November 30, 1982, Assistant Principal Tommy Tate notified Respondent, in an observation report acknowledged by him, that two areas in his performance needed improvement because of no lesson plans. This was followed up by the evaluation report submitted on Respondent by Mr. Scott, the principal, on December 15, 1982, and acknowledged by Respondent on December 17, 1982, that he was to keep lesson plans updated. The time line specified for achieving this improvement was "this marking period," or, in other words, right away. On February 18, 1983, Ms. Phillips, fulfilling her duties pursuant to Mr. Scott's instructions, prepared a letter to a certain 20 faculty members, including Respondent 1/ . This letter, which was approved by Mr. Scott before being sent out, notified the recipients that they were delinquent in filing lesson plans and warned them they would be evaluated "unsatisfactory" unless they turned them in. Respondent received his copy of that letter. Somewhat later, when Ms. Phillips checked on who had still not filed their lesson plans, she found that several, including Respondent, were still delinquent. Most of these, however, except Respondent, did submit their lesson plans within a month and a half; and those who were delinquent, except for one teacher, Mr. Reeder, were not nearly so delinquent as Respondent either in number delinquent or time. Even Reeder, however, ultimately brought his plans up to date. On March 18, 1983, a second letter was sent out, drafted by Ms. Phillips, but signed by the principal, again reminding some nine or ten teachers who had not as yet complied with the previous letter, including Respondent, that he expected each teacher to file the lesson plans and that those who did not would not only be rated unsatisfactory, but would also be considered insubordinate. Respondent and several other teachers who testified in his behalf, and to whom the letter was directed, indicated they did not get it. It is, therefore, quite possible that this particular letter did not get the wide dissemination Mr. Scott thought it did. However, its follow-up, on April 11, 1983, sent to those who did not respond to the March 18 letter, was received by Respondent, as he submitted the letter called for in specific response to this April letter which, it is noted, also advised of the consequences for noncompliance. In his letter of response, dated April 14, 1983, Respondent clearly stated his position in opposition to preparing and submitting lesson plans and, while not specifically stating he would not comply with Mr. Scott's previously expressed requirements, clearly indicated he would not be doing so. No other conclusion can reasonably be drawn from his willingness to accept an evaluation of unsatisfactory and a classification of insubordinate. The principal displayed an inordinate amount of maturity and patience in his response to Respondent of April 19, 1983. Again restating his reasons for requesting lesson plans, he then graciously requested Respondent to reconsider and comply. Though couched in terms far less than directive, under the circumstances, it is clear this was an official request which was the force and effect of a direction. Notwithstanding this latitude he was given, Respondent again failed to comply with the requirement to submit lesson plans and, on April 27, 1983, both the principal and vice principal, Messrs. Scott and Tate, rated him unsatisfactory in the one area on the observation and evaluation forms dealing with lesson plans. All other areas were rated satisfactory. Mr. Tate indicated that at this second observation, Respondent told him he would photocopy lesson plans if they wanted them. From Respondent's words and the tone of voice in which they were said, Mr. Tate inferred that Respondent thought it was stupid to do lesson plans and he did not see why he should have to. Finally, on May 6, 1983, Mr. Scott sent a memo directly to Respondent only, recounting in summary from the prior history of this dispute and the authority for the requirement. Respondent was also ordered and directed, in writing, to turn in all lesson plans for the 1982-83 school year, including those due for the week of May 9 through 13 2/ , to Mr. Scott's office before 8:35 a.m. on Monday, May 9, 1983. He was also warned that his failure to comply would be deemed gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty and would subject him to disciplinary action. At the meeting between the two, in Mr. Scott's office on May 6, when this letter was given to him, Respondent indicates he was told he was the only one in the whole school who had not turned in lesson plans. At this point, he agreed to do them, but told Scott then that he could not get them done by 8:35 a.m. on May 9. By 9 a.m. or so on May 9, when Respondent still had not brought any lesson plans to the office or contacted Mr. Scott for an extension, Mr. Scott sent his secretary, Barbara Rousch, to Respondent's room to pick them up. When she arrived there, Respondent did not offer her any plans. When she asked for the plans, Respondent said he was working on them. Specifically, he said, "I'll have them for you. Maybe not today, but I'm cooking on them." When he said this, Respondent was sitting at his desk working on the lesson plans while the students were in the room. 3/ Ms. Rousch was standing by his desk, and he neither showed her nor offered to show her the plans he had completed, though he contends that he showed her, from his desk book, what he had done. He states that he had completed at that time a complete set of plans for one of three classes of Algebra I and some plans for his class in consumer math. He admits he still had remaining to do two sets for the remaining Algebra I classes and one set for his class in Algebra II. After Ms. Rousch left Respondent's office, there was no further discussion regarding the lesson plans. Respondent finished out the school day and after school went to his place of business off campus. It was then, about 5:30 p.m. on May 9, that Mr. Vogel, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, told him that he had been suspended and was not to come to school the next day. Nonetheless, he completed the lesson plans and himself turned in 31 weeks' worth to Barbara Rousch on May 12, 1983. His daughter turned in three more plans to Ms. Phillips the same day. Respondent has remained suspended without pay since May 9, 1983. Respondent has been employed at OHS under five different principals since January, 1975. During all this time, he does not recall the rules requiring lesson plans to have been enforced prior to the 1982-83 school year. Since the beginning of this year, the enforcement has become stricter as the year went on. After Mr. Scott had been principal for a year, he removed Respondent as athletic director without stating a reason. However, when it appeared that there was thereafter a shortage on the books of the athletic department, Respondent reported the matter to Mr. Scott, who said he would look into it. When Respondent told Scott he wanted to look at the books kept on several sports programs, he was denied access. When he asked Scott about it somewhat later and Scott said he had not done anything about it, Respondent went to the bookkeeper, who told him Scott had the books. There have been other conflicts between the two individuals, as well. When Scott first came to the school, the principal ran the faculty council meetings. When Respondent took over as chairman of the council, he advised Mr. Scott that he, Respondent, would run the meetings, and he dictated to the principal how things would be done. According to Respondent, Scott neither resisted nor made comment about this. Though these conflicts existed, they appear to Respondent to be the result of a lack of communication. Even though there was no outward animosity from Scott to him, he feels it must have been hidden within Scott, who, he now feels, is singling him out for discipline. He has never heard of any action this severe for lesson plans, so he feels there must be another reason. There is a clear pattern of resistance and disobedience demonstrated, however, by the above-cited evidence and Respondent's reaction throughout the year. For example, he states he turned in two weeks of plans in October, 1982, and until the remainder were turned in on May 12, 1983, no more, regardless of how many times he was reminded of the requirement. He got all the notices and memos except that of March 18, 1983, and was aware of the technical requirement to turn the plans in. Still, he did not, nor did he take any of the memos until May 6 as an order to turn them in. When, on that date, he got what he perceives as the first direction to turn the plans in, he did comply, although not on time even then, nor did he evidence any concern about not doing so. He contends that on the weekend of May 7 and 8, 1983, he worked 14 hours on the plans, but also admits he spent a reasonable portion of that weekend pursuing his off-campus swimming pool business. He interpreted the April 11 memo as an either/or proposition, either turn in the lesson plans, or say why you did not. He chose to write the letter and was willing to receive an unsatisfactory rating because he did not consider that had any effect on him -- a tenured teacher. It was not until the May 6 meeting with Scott that the administration was serious and that he had better turn the lesson plans in. Prior to that day, he did not know what gross insubordination meant. Scott told him he might be returned to annual contract status, but did not tell him he would be dismissed. From the beginning to now, he does not know why so much fuss is being made of lesson plans in light of the fact that as late as May 10, 1983, some teachers were delinquent in their lesson plans. Respondent contends that he does lesson plans his way. He writes out what he plans to cover on a yellow sheet and spends his time teaching rather than filling out forms. However, teachers are given at least one period out of each school day for planning. During this planning period, no students are there to be taught. Though some books have lesson plans prepared for the teacher in the instructor's workbook, those being used by Respondent this year did not have those plans included. Even if they had, the mere photocopy of book plans was deemed by this administration to be inadequate. Respondent, having first said he did plan his way, also says he has worked as a teacher for years without lesson plans. Lesson plans, even when submitted, are merely placed in a file and not used. Consequently, he could see no need for lesson plans. Though, by his own testimony, he knew of the requirement in the law and that it had been there for years, he felt it was a choice item, and he did not have the obligation to follow it. He contends that other than the requirements of scope and sequence and what is in the teachers' handbook, there is no direction as to what is a sufficient lesson plan. Numerous teachers who were employed at OHS during the 1982-83 school year confirmed Respondent's testimony as to the prior laxity in enforcing the requirement for lesson plans up until that year. There was also evidence from these teachers of an authoritarian atmosphere at OHS during the 1982-83 school year. Testimony revealed rumors being spread that Mr. Scott had a list of teachers he wanted to get rid of that included Respondent, among others. Yet, not one individual, except Respondent, including several who moved voluntarily to St. Cloud High School this year, testified that any threats were made to them or suggestions that they move by Mr. Scott or anyone in the administration of OHS. Those who moved voluntarily because they were "advised" they were on the "hit list" and should move testified they did so not at the instigation of the administration, but upon the advice of the teachers' union representative. The incidence of rumor and innuendo on the part of one side, attempting to paint the principal and the administration in a bad light, while ignoring the defiance of legitimate authority by Respondent, is clearly shown in the testimony of one teacher that the attitude among the faculty that year was "Hitler was alive and well at OHS." Yet, she admits she had no problem personally with Mr. Scott. He was very supportive of her. Even another teacher who was questioned by Mr. Scott regarding a leak of information to the press during the year and who transferred at the end of the school year, stated she had received no pressure from Mr. Scott, had been thinking of transferring anyway, and was also advised to do so by the teachers' union. One other teacher who was also interviewed by Mr. Scott regarding the press leak was approached afterwards by a union representative and asked if he wanted to meet with other teachers about this. The union representative told them it would be unhealthy for them to remain at OHS, and they should request to transfer out. This particular teacher, however, though he testified on behalf of Respondent, nonetheless desired to remain at OHS. Several teachers testified that Mr. Scott had said that the 1982-83 school year was going to be Mr. Markley's last year at OHS. Scott categorically denied ever having made that threat. The comment in question was made to him by someone else in the context that Respondent was leaving voluntarily to go into another business. Respondent is, in fact, engaged in the conduct of his own swimming pool business, which he started after being relieved as athletic director.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Jay S. Markley be found not guilty of misconduct in office, but guilty of gross insubordination; that his suspension effective May 9, 1983, be sustained; that he be dismissed from employment with the Osceola County School Board; and that he be denied pay from May 9, 1983. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that for Fiscal Year 1987-1988, the vocational- technical-adult education division of the Pinellas County Schools suffered a $7,000,000.00 budget deficit. The parties further agreed that if Dr. Cecil Boris, Executive Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction were present, she would testify that she determined that as a result of the budget deficit, it would be necessary to eliminate $1,000,000.00 from the budget for the 1988-1989 fiscal year. She instructed her staff to implement that reduction based on two considerations. The first involved the cost effectiveness of individual programs and the second related to the need for the school system to service the community. The parties further agreed that in their respective departments, Mr. Poole and Mr. Muckle were the least senior instructors. Mr. Poole and Mr. Muckle both were continuing contract teachers at PVTI. Mr. Poole taught welding and Mr. Muckle taught heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. The terms of their employment are governed by the Agreement between The School Board of Pinellas County and the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association, (Union), for 1985-1988. Other than the slots occupied by both Respondents as described above, and with the exception that as to Mr. Poole, a possible slot for him existed at SPVTI, there were and are no other open slots within the school system for which either Respondent is certified to teach. The parties agreed that the use of the term "open" means unoccupied by a continuing contract teacher or a teacher serving under a professional service contract. The parties further agreed that negotiations were conducted by the School Board with each Respondent in an effort to place him in other positions subsequent to his termination but the negotiations were unsuccessful. Pertinent Florida statutes relative to the issue here indicate that unless a teacher's contract is terminated for cause, it must be terminated at the end of the school year. Though the contracts of Mr. Poole and Mr. Muckle were not so terminated at the end of a school year, the parties agreed that failure was not and would not be raised as a defense to their termination. In November or December of each year, the various county school boards, including Petitioner, receive from the State the number of full time equivalents, (FTEs) they will be authorized for the following school year. A FTE equates to 900 hours of instruction per pupil and is authorized in various categories, including secondary education, post-secondary education, adult education, etc. If the Board feels the authorization allotted to it is inadequate or erroneous, it can appeal that allotment. Ordinarily, however, once the number of FTEs is received, the Board then examines the various programs it proposes to offer and establishes the number of units which it can employ for the coming school year. A unit equates to one full-time teacher. In addition, on the basis of the FTE authorization, the Board can figure what part time hour programs it can offer by the number of hours available to it. The post-secondary vocational-technical-adult education area is divided into several basic curriculum areas including, but not limited to, business education, distributive education, agricultural education, building trades, and health occupation education. The areas are not all funded equally but are weighted on the basis of projected student population relating to FTEs. The weights change year by year and the effect of weighting creates, in some cases, an opportunity to have a lower teacher/pupil ratio, (TPR). Some areas, by law, require lower TPRs. As a result, the weight for these programs is higher. Conversely, if the requirement is not as high, then the weighting given to the FTE is lower. When the Pinellas County School Board received its authorization for FTEs, a staff model implementing these authorizations was prepared by Dr. Herbert Ross, Assistant Superintendent for Vocational-Technical-Adult Education, under Dr. Boris' direction. This staff model, which defines where the FTEs are to be assigned, is prepared by the staff which, in doing so, evaluates the prior years programs, the TPR, the placement of students, and the future of the various authorized programs based on input from the various school advisory committees. This staffing model, when promulgated, is not fixed. If additional economies can be generated as a result of factors which occur later on in the school year, these economies will be implemented. By the same token, if a vacancy occurs subsequent to the preparation of the staffing model which does not warrant replacement based on projections of student population, the Board will not hire a replacement. The staff model pertinent to this case, prepared by the Division of Curriculum and Instruction, as it related to vocational teachers, reflects that SPVTI's staffing level for vocational teachers was to be reduced from 109 to 102 (7 teachers), and PVTI's teacher staffing was to be reduced from 120 to 111, (9 teachers). Elimination of these 16 teacher positions would result in a savings of $518,400.00. The entire reduction generated by staff reductions throughout the Division of Curriculum and Instruction totaled $1,085,612.00. The reductions identified in the staffing summary were based on the 1988 student load reports and the registrar's reports of enrollment in the various schools. Student load reports were not the sole factor considered. TPR's were also considered as were the number of sections in a program, (a program with one section only, involving one instructor, would not likely be cut as to do so would result in the loss of the entire expertise in that area), the various course placement records, the need for the course within the community, and other factors of a similar nature. When the evaluations were made, individual instructors were considered. The determination as to which programs required cuts generally resulted in identification of those programs with the lowest TPR being singled out for reduction. In this regard, Counsel for Respondent strongly contested Mr. Wagner's analysis of which programs were cut and why. Documentation prepared by her from records furnished by the Board in response to discovery would tend to indicate that many programs with a much lower TPR than either that of Mr. Muckle or Mr. Poole's classes were spared reduction while Poole's and Muckle's programs were cut. Mr. Wagner logically and reasonably justified each one of the judgement calls he made in determining whether a particular program should or should not be cut and no evidence was presented by Respondents to indicate that his judgement was incorrect or unsupported. Neither Mr. Wagner nor Dr. Ross played any part in the identification of the individuals who were to be terminated. Once the programs to be reduced were identified, they were forwarded to the school district personnel officer where identification of individual instructors was made on the basis of number of students, number of teachers, and projections for the future. Both the welding program, in which Mr. Poole teaches, and the heating, ventilating and air conditioning program, in which Mr. Muckle teaches, are in the same weighted category of courses, (trade and industrial). Based on the weight factors for trade and industrial courses, a unit, (teacher), needs a 12 to 14 TPR of full time students or part time equivalents. In making his identification of programs to be reduced, Mr. Wagner relied on several documents produced within his facility. The first is the registrar produced enrollment documents reflecting each course's student enrollment by nine week period, (quintmester or quint), for the prior two years. These quint rolls are prepared at the opening of each quint by the registrar from registration forms submitted by students for each class in session. As students come and go during the quint, adjustments are made as required. These forms, however, give the student enrollment only at the beginning of the term, and in order to get an accurate figure of class enrollment at any given time, Mr. Wagner periodically requests his instructors to prepare student load reports which list, by class period, the number of students each instructor has enrolled in his class and present on the day the report is submitted. Since some students are full time and some only part time, in determining the TPR, 3 part time students equal 1 full time student. This is a reasonable method of analysis. After making his study, Mr. Wagner identified the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning courses and the welding courses for reduction because these two technologies had been suffering a decline over several years. In fact, Mr. Muckle was warned that his job might be in jeopardy the prior year. In addition, whereas the institute had been previously getting central office support for various programs during a period of decline, this support was no longer forthcoming. When Wagner recommended cuts to the district personnel office, his recommendation was to cut a unit in the department. The choice of instructor was based upon seniority. The TPR in the heating, ventilating and air conditioning program had shown a pattern of continuous decline and enrollment at the time of identification was even lower than in previous years. Major appliances, a part of that program, had suffered a reduction through retirement of an instructor during the past year and this year, with the number of students enrolled being even smaller, it was necessary to cut an additional instructor. This same situation applied to the welding technology where though there was higher fluctuations than in heating, ventilating and air conditioning, the pattern of decline was consistent. Because of the impact that reduction has on the instructors within the system, the administration attempts, wherever possible, to do away first with vacancies. When those are gone, the remaining necessary cuts are attempted through attrition. In the instant case, Mr. Wagner cut two open units and got three more by not replacing retirements. Once these five units were cut, he was forced to look to annual contract teachers. A teacher who resigned was not replaced. Finally, when cuts were still required, it became necessary to look to continuing contract teachers to make up the difference between the six spaces mentioned above and the sixteen needed. Night course programs cannot be considered in the same category with day programs as they are "supplemental" programs. Teachers within these programs are usually part time teachers hired at an hourly rate. Mr. Wagner did not consider placing those teachers identified for cutting into the night program as teachers. Generally an instructor under continuing contract which calls for 25 hours of instruction per week cannot get enough teaching hours in a night program, (four nights per week, at four hours per night), to make absorption of the remaining nine hours cost efficient. Mr. Poole was not the only instructor identified for cut in the welding program. At the beginning of the identification process, four teachers were in the program, but Mr. Poole, the most junior, was identified and his position cut. That left three instructors. By May, 1988, Mr. Wagner had to recommend another reduction in that program, reducing the number to two and the prognosis was for even further decline. Even with the reductions imposed and identified for future imposition, it would appear that the welding program was not cost effective, notwithstanding Mr. Poole's testimony, uncontroverted, that it was well received in the community and the placement record for students coming out of the program was good. The May/June 1988 enrollment figures showed 25 students in the programs. This is just enough for two instructor positions. Consequently, when Mr. Wagner identified the third unit, rather than cut it, he transferred it to SPVTI along with the incumbent instructor effective July 1, 1988, the start of the 1988/1989 fiscal year. Mr. Poole was junior to that instructor. Quint reports for the HVAC program showed for the January - March 1988 period 49 students in the program with 7 teachers, generating a TPR of 7. In the previous year, there were 69 students at the beginning of the school year and during the same months of that year, the count was 75 students. Mr. Wagner projected that the student population would go down even further in the future. As for the welding program, during the January - March 1988 period, the program served 28 students with 4 teachers. At the beginning of the school year, the student population was 29 and during the same period for the previous year, it was 33. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and welding were not the only programs identified for reduction during this round of budget cuts. Several others, including electromechanical studies and practical nursing were also reduced as were the architecture/civil program. All of these had TPRs of 10 or less. No program with a TPR of over 10 was affected by the cuts. Once Mr. Muckle and Mr. Poole were identified by the district personnel office for cut, Mr. Wagner looked to see if, consistent with their certification, they could be moved into another department. Mr. Poole is certified in welding and Mr. Muckle is certified in heating and air conditioning. Both are certified in related technology. However, both instructors are continuing contract teachers and changing to a related technology is not normally done for continuing contract instructors. Several departments at PVTI which have a lower TPR than welding and HVAC were not affected. In one case, Mr. Wagner reduced a teacher to a 10 month contract from a 12 month contract status and also generated 39 more part time students in an effort to raise the TPR and keep the course. One-teacher departments, even with a lower TPR, were kept open in order not to lose the expertise. In other cases, the nature of the student population involved might have justified keeping a course open even with a low TPR, (handicap). The determination as to where to impose cuts was, in most cases, a question of judgement wherein Mr. Wagner, as Director of the school, had to consider other factors in addition to the TPR in deciding where to recommend the cuts. Mr. Poole had previously taught at night and was willing to again teach at night on a part time basis. However, he had chosen to withdraw from teaching night classes in the past and notwithstanding he stated he had offered to teach them again, he did not communicate this to Wagner. As to whether Poole could be reassigned to the welding program at SPVTI, there are currently two instructors, (including a transfer in from PVTI), on board and at the close of July, 1988, there were only 9 or 10 students for both teachers. This does not justify a third teaching position for Mr. Poole to fill. Respondents, offered several statistical surveys of teacher/pupil ratios which indicate there are numerous programs within the school system which appear to have lower TPRs than either the welding or HVAC programs. However, numerous factors other than TPR were considered in determining and identifying various programs for reduction. There has been no evidence whatever to indicate that Mr. Wagner's judgement was inaccurate, incorrect, or flawed. There was no evidence that his decisions were either arbitrary or capricious or based on an improper attempt to impose an adverse action on either Respondent or to improperly give benefit to others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the termination of employment of Respondents Jeffrey Muckle and Thomas Poole be upheld and their employment contracts with the School Board of Pinellas County be cancelled. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 29th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-2005, 88-2008 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3 - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8 - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10 - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 16 - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. For the Respondents: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Sentence one is rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. The remainder is accepted. 7 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 - 10. Accepted. 11 - 12. Accepted. Rejected. Information is available. The issue is one of credibility and weight. Rejected and irrelevant. Rejected. Petitioner admits some records are not complete. The issue, however, is not one of statistics but of concept and the evidence is clear that Mr. Wagner's decision was based on reliable evidence which fairly presented the overall picture. Rejected and irrelevant. Conclusion in last sentence is rejected. 18 - 19. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted but not controlling. Accepted and incorporated herein. Explained. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not controlling. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board Attorney 1960 East Druid Road Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 Charleen C. Ramus, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. 1724 East 7th Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
The Issue The issues in this matter are as follows: (a) whether Petitioner followed all procedural requirements before deciding to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher; and whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment as a teacher should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact In 1985, Respondent received her Florida Teacher Certification, qualifying her to teach elementary education, Grades 1-6. She continues to hold that certification. Respondent worked as a substitute teacher in Petitioner's elementary, middle, and high schools for 13 years before she was hired as a full-time teacher in 1998. Thereafter, Respondent taught the following classes at the following schools: (a) from 1999–2003, “literacy” and language arts to sixth and seventh graders at Paxon Middle School; from 2003-2004, third graders at John E. Ford Elementary; from 2004-2006, first graders at Lake Lucina Elementary (Lake Lucina); (d) from 2006-2007, first graders at Arlington Heights Elementary (Arlington Heights); and (e) from 2007-2008, fourth graders at Sabal Palm Elementary (Sabal Palm). Throughout her tenure as a full-time teacher, school principals evaluated Respondent's performance on an annual basis. During school years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, Petitioner used the Teacher Assessment System (“TAS”) as the primary method to evaluate Respondent's teaching ability. The TAS measures teaching performance based on nine different “Competencies.” These Competencies, listed in the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 versions of the TAS include the following: (a) Promotes student growth and performance; (b) Evaluates instructional needs of students; (c) Plans and delivers effective instruction; (d) Shows knowledge of subject matter; (e) Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (f) Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; (g) Communicates with parents; (h) Pursues professional growth; and (i) Demonstrates professional behaviors. Under the TAS, a school administrator (usually the principal) evaluates teachers based on three scheduled classroom observations. During the observations, the principal uses the Teacher Assessment Instrument (“TAI”) to collect data and identify “indicators” associated with each Competency. In evaluating a teacher’s overall performance, principals may also consider informal, unannounced observations. The Classroom Observation Instrument (“COI”) is an earlier version of the TAI. The COI contains the same Competencies as the TAI, though they appear in different order. The “Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher” is a summative evaluation form used during the final annual evaluation conference. The form reflects the teacher’s final rating as to each Competency and the principal’s overall performance rating for the school year. The TAS procedures provide as follows in pertinent part: TAS Procedures-Principal/Supervisor PLEASE NOTE: One purpose of the TAS is to assist the employee to improve performance. Performance problems are best addressed early. If an informal observation or classroom visit indicates possible performance problems then the principal should immediately arrange to initiate a formal classroom observation using the TAI. Conduct an initial orientation for all instructional employees to be evaluated by the TAS. This should occur during pre- planning and include at minimum, 1) an overview of the forms and procedures, 2) a description of the competencies and their indicators, and 3) your schedule for observation activities. Pre-arrange with the employee at least one instructional session to be formally observed. Conduct a pre-observation conference with the employee. Discuss with the employee information regarding the lesson plan, targeted students and methodology. A pre-observation conference must occur. Conduct the observation using the TAI. All competency indicators that are observed during this observation will be checked on the TAI. Complete the TAI for all competencies/indicators not completed during the classroom observation. After the instrument has been completed, review and rate the data, and prepare the report to share with the employee. Within five (5) working days, schedule and conduct a post-observation conference with the employee to provide feedback. During the post-observation conference, review the TAI with the employee. Identify any problematic areas. At this time, schedule a conference to develop a success plan for employees who potentially may receive an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. This action must take place within two (2) weeks of the post conference but prior to February 1. During this time, a letter of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation must be given to the employee. Close the conference by signing all appropriate documents and securing the employee's signature of receipt. Follow the time line provided in the manual to ensure compliance with the reappointment process and to ensure due process for the employee. If a teacher demonstrates deficient performance under any Competency, a "Success Plan" is written in collaboration with the teacher. The Success Plan identifies areas of weakness by Competency, sets out objectives, and provides timelines to meet the objectives. A Success Plan Team includes the teacher, school administrators, colleagues that have expertise in the relevant subject matter, “resource” teachers or “coaches,” and, at times, a teachers’ union representative. According to the TAS, personnel decisions will be appropriate if the timeline and the following steps are followed: Notify the employee in clear and simple written communication(s) regarding your specific performance expectation as identified by the competency indicators on the TAI. Explain to the employee in oral and written detail the deficiency(ies) from the previously stated expectation(s). (Be specific by noting the time factors, place, circumstances, principal observations). Arrange with and/or for the employee to receive appropriate training or other assistance as needed in order to improve the deficiency(ies) noted on the TAS Success Plan. Record in writing any offers of help. Time any communication(s) to the employee so there is sufficient opportunity for the employee to correct deficiencies. The Success Plan Team (including the identified employee) must meet frequently to review the status of the implementation of the plan and the employee’s progress. While teaching first graders at Lake Lucina, Respondent elected to transfer to Arlington Heights in school year 2006-2007. Robert L. Snyder was, and still is, the principal of Arlington Heights. Upon meeting Respondent, Mr. Snyder considered Respondent as a pleasant and likeable person. However, because Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation the prior year, Mr. Snyder arranged for the development of a Success Plan for Respondent. With Respondent's input, the Success Plan Team drafted a Success Plan to be implemented at Arlington Heights. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvement in those areas, and timelines. It was finalized and signed by Ms. Hunt in October 2006. The Success Plan Team included experienced teaching coaches. The coaches modeled instruction in Respondent's class on several occasions. Mr. Snyder conducted three formal observations and observed Respondent’s teaching performance informally on several occasions. During his visits to the classroom, Mr. Snyder would see students doing worksheets amounting to “busy work” which had no apparent connection to instruction or evaluation. Mr. Snyder kept personal notes documenting Respondent's tardiness to school on several occasions. He also noted her tardiness to workshops and in-service programs, including an in-service program focused on a reading assessment system for first graders known as Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). On or about January 30, 2008, Mr. Snyder intended to deliver a letter to Respondent, advising her that she was at risk to receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the year. When he went to Respondent's classroom, Mr. Snyder discovered that Petitioner was absent and had left no plans for the substitute teacher. The school policy required teachers to have three days of substitute plans in case of an unexpected absence. While Mr. Snyder assisted in the development of plans for the substitute teacher, he observed incomplete and blank DRA data collection forms. The forms did not indicate the students' levels of reading ability or the strategies put in place to enhance areas of weakness. Mr. Snyder also observed the teaching assistant doing work which should have been done by Respondent, such as grading papers. When Respondent submitted her lesson plans to Mr. Snyder, he observed that Respondent was not actually teaching the lesson plans to her class. Mr. Snyder also noted a lack of grades in Respondent's grade book. Mr. Snyder brought these concerns to Respondent's attention verbally and in writing. Throughout the school year, Respondent had a full-time paraprofessional/teacher’s assistant (“TA”) in her classroom. Mr. Snyder observed tensions between Respondent and her TA, as well as a second TA. The working relationship between Respondent and her TA deteriorated through the year. On one occasion, Respondent left her class of first graders completely unattended by an adult for twenty minutes. Mr. Snyder knew Respondent was in the office working on the computer when he saw Respondent's unsupervised students. On another occasion, Mr. Snyder saw Respondent who appeared to be videotaping students in a common hallway. The school did not have parental permission to videotape some of the students in another teacher's class. Mr. Snyder retrieved the videotape and discarded it. Respondent did not attend certain conferences with Mr. Snyder (including at least one formal pre-observation conference). Additionally, it was difficult to conduct meetings with the Success Plan Team because Respondent always insisted that an outside union representative instead of the building representative attend the meetings with her. Scheduled meetings with Respondent were delayed or cancelled on a number of occasions because an outside union representative was not available. Mr. Snyder formally observed Respondent and completed TIAs on December 15, 2006, February 6, 2007 and March 14, 2007. Mr. Snyder had a conference with Respondent before and after each formal observation to discuss the TIAs. Respondent signed each TIA. Respondent’s Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher was issued on March 15, 2007. Reflecting the findings on the TIAs, the annual evaluation showed unsatisfactory performance in the following Competencies: Promoting Student Growth and Performance; Planning and Delivering Effective Instruction; and Demonstrates Professional Behaviors. The evaluation also showed a “Needs Improvement” rating in the following Competencies: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students; Utilizes Appropriate Classroom Management; and Parent Communications. Respondent received and signed the annual evaluation. In school year 2007-2008, Respondent elected to transfer to Sabal Palm. At the new school, Respondent taught reading, writing and science to a fourth-grade class. Respondent's co-teacher, Kim Stancil, taught math and social studies. There were approximately 26 students in the class. The principal at Sabal Palm was, and still is, Mary Mickel. Because Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation the prior year, Ms. Mickel initiated a Success Plan for Respondent. Respondent signed a final copy of the plan on December 11, 2007. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvement in those areas, and timelines. The Success Plan Team consisted of Ms. Mickel, other teachers, a “standards coach," and a “reading coach.” Ms. Stancil retired on October 29, 2007. A new co- teacher, Christie Callison, began teaching in January 2008. Ms. Mickel became concerned when Respondent failed to attend grade-level meetings. After receiving encouragement from Ms. Mickel, Respondent began attending the meetings but did not actively participate. Ms. Mickel had several parents call to complain about how Respondent treated their children or how their children were doing in Respondent's class. Ms. Mickel participated in at least one parent/teacher conference to resolve a parent's concerns. Ms. Mickel visited Respondent's classroom from time to time throughout the school year. Ms. Mickel conducted four formal evaluations of Respondent's performance. The formal observations took place on the following dates: September 13, 2007; November 19, 2007; January 28, 2008; and March 5, 2008. Ms. Mickel provided Respondent with advanced notice of the formal observations. Ms. Mickel had a conference with Ms. Hunt before and after the observations. During the formal observations, Ms. Mickel used the COI instrument to document indicators of performance under the nine Competencies. Respondent does not challenge Ms. Mickel's use of the COIs versus the TIAs. Ms. Mickel observed Respondent using materials and teaching subjects that were not age-appropriate for fourth graders. For instance, Respondent based a lesson on a book typically used with 1st graders. Ms. Mickel discussed this with Respondent and commented on the subject in the COIs. As time passed, Ms. Mickel observed Respondent's continued failure to properly assess student performance and failure to tailor instruction to student needs. Respondent had opportunities to participate in grade- level training on a weekly basis. She was allowed to observe other teachers in her school without having to take personal time. Respondent's coaches came into her class, prepared a lesson plan with her, and modeled the instruction. According to Ms. Callison, Respondent refused to collaborate with planning and instruction. Respondent did not want, give or receive assistance from her co-teacher. Respondent typically did not provide direct instruction to the students. Instead, Respondent gave the students “busy work” via worksheets that had nothing to do with the required curriculum. Respondent openly classified students by ability, using terms such as “middle group” and “low group.” Respondent would then have students grade each others’ papers and report the grades out loud to Respondent in class. Respondent’s Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher was issued on March 14, 2008. Reflecting the findings on the COIs, the annual evaluation showed unsatisfactory performance under the following Competencies: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students and Plans and Delivers Effective Instruction. Respondent obtained a “Needs Improvement” rating in the following Competencies: Promotes Student Growth and Performance; Communicates with Parents; and Demonstrates Professional Behaviors. Respondent received and signed the annual evaluation. Respondent testified that teaching fourth grade is particularly challenging compared to teaching other grade levels. According to Respondent, fourth-grade is difficult to teach because students must take the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in math, reading and writing. Although Respondent was without a co-teacher for a portion of the 2007-2008 school term, she is certified to teach all fourth-grade subjects. More importantly, Respondent has had experience teaching reading and writing to sixth and seventh- grade students, some of whom were working at the fourth-grade level. Respondent worked with and was evaluated by seven different principals throughout the last eight years of her employment. During those eight years, Respondent's summative evaluations showed her performance as follows: (a) eight consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Parent Communication Competency; (b) five consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Student Growth and Performance Competency; (c) five consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Planning and Delivery of Instruction Competency; (d) four consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Evaluation of Student Needs Competency.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Petitioner, Osceola County School Board (School Board or Petitioner), has just cause to terminate Respondents Mona Sagar and Kristie Gilmore from their employment contracts.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Osceola County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore were employed by the School District. Ms. Sagar has been in the education field for years. She attended “teachers college” in Trinidad and taught school there for ten years. She was hired as a paraprofessional (para) by the School District in 2011. Ms. Sagar was assigned to an autistic classroom at Discovery Intermediate School (Discovery) and later switched to an “intellectually disabled mild” (InD mild) classroom. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Sagar was the para assigned to the “intellectually disabled severe” (InD severe) class. The InD severe class had a teacher and two paras,7/ and was composed of children who were mainly confined to wheelchairs or who needed special assistance to walk. Ms. Sagar completed the crisis prevention intervention (CPI) class, a class that instructs personnel on how to physically and verbally restrain, redirect, and prompt a child who is misbehaving. Ms. Gilmore became a para in exceptional student education (ESE) in 2005. She arrived at Discovery in August 2005. Ms. Gilmore worked with students with varying educational needs including: emotional behavior disorder (EBD); autism; InD mild; intellectually disabled moderate (InD moderate); intellectually disabled profound (InD profound); and regular educational students.8/ Ms. Gilmore had completed the CPI training twice before, but she was not re-certified at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Discovery had six self-contained ESE classrooms for the 2013-2014 school year. There were two autistic classrooms, one InD mild classroom, one InD moderate classroom, one InD severe classroom, and one EBD classroom. All six classrooms are located on the first floor of one of Discovery’s buildings, in close proximity to the office of the dean of students. Student safety is of paramount concern for School District employees. As such, every EBD classroom has a land-line telephone and a walkie-talkie for use to request assistance, to notify the appropriate office of a student’s unscheduled exit from the classroom and to provide other information. The telephone is primarily a school-based phone that has its own five-digit internal extension number.9/ In the event a walkie-talkie is not available, a teacher or para may use the telephone to communicate with other school personnel. The walkie-talkies are limited to the self-contained classrooms, guidance counselors, deans, school resource officer, administrators, principal’s secretary, academic coaches, athletic coaches, and maintenance staff. The walkie-talkies are on one channel or frequency, and when used, everyone who has a walkie- talkie can hear the conversation. Discipline referrals may be written by any adult at Discovery for any infraction in the student code of conduct. The referral form reflects the student’s name, identification number, the classroom, school, grade level, date of birth, race, sex, homeroom teacher, incident date and time, location of the incident, the problem or explanation of the problem, the action taken by the adult prior to the referral, the signature of the referring adult, and the date signed. The bottom of the referral form was for “administrative use only,” and reflects what if any action was taken. Ms. Gilmore, as the para in the EBD self- contained classroom, authored numerous discipline referrals for student J.G. During the 2013 summer, Ms. Chowdhary was notified that she would be re-assigned to Discovery’s EBD self-contained classroom for the 2013-2014 school year. Ms. Chowdhary did not want this assignment; however, Ms. Chowdhary contacted Ms. Gilmore and asked if she (Ms. Gilmore) would consent to be Ms. Chowdhary’s para in her EBD self-contained classroom. This request was based on their positive working relationship during the 2012-2013 school year in an autistic classroom. Ms. Gilmore agreed, the school administration concurred, and Ms. Gilmore was assigned to Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year there were ten male students in Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. This classroom had a walkie-talkie and telephone. Each student had an individual educational plan (IEP), a different EBD, and a medical condition. On the first day of school, each student was given a welcome packet that contained an emergency contact sheet and a health care report form. The parents are requested (but not required) to complete as much of the information as they wish, and return it to the classroom. Ms. Gilmore read the responses “thoroughly” regarding the medical conditions of students J.G. and J.C., as provided by their respective parents or guardians. In early December 2013, Ms. Gilmore was re-assigned to an InD moderate classroom as an accommodation for her pregnancy. Ms. Chowdhary requested a male para to replace Ms. Gilmore. Based on the support staff already engaged by Discovery, Ms. Sagar was transferred to work in Ms. Chowdhary’s self- contained classroom. Ms. Sagar observed and worked with Ms. Gilmore on two separate days for several hours prior to the actual transfer in mid-December. Approximately two weeks before the Christmas break, a female student, J.T., arrived in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. was taller and heavier than either Ms. Chowdhary or Ms. Sagar. J.T.’s language was loud and predominantly profanity-laced. J.T. did not complete her classroom assignments, and she did not follow the classroom rules regarding the use of her cellphone.10/ On January 9, 2014, Ms. Gilmore learned that Ms. Chowdhary was absent from school. Ms. Gilmore volunteered to be the substitute teacher in Ms. Chowdhary’s classroom.11/ In the early afternoon of January 9, two male students engaged in a physical altercation (Altercation No. 1) in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. took out her cellphone and recorded Altercation No. 1 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 6, Respondents’ Exhibit 21). That recording showed one student, J.G., standing over and taunting another student, J.C. J.G. called J.C. a “taco.” J.C. responded that J.G. should call J.C. “Taco Bell,” and added that J.G. was the dark meat in his taco. J.G. took J.C.’s remark to be a racist comment. J.C.12/ was crumpled on the floor behind a desk where J.G. grabbed J.C. by his warm-up jacket collar/shirt. J.G. pulled J.C. up by the collar/shirt and pushed J.C. into a chair at a computer cubby and small space near a wall. J.G. kept one hand on J.C. while pinning J.C. to the small space. J.G. continued to taunt J.C. and is heard to say: Next comment I’m gonna stomp on your [J.C.’s] heart, and I know you got a condition to where I stomp on it, you dead, and I don’t give a f . So you can’t keep making a racist joke. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were both present and observed Altercation No. 1. Ms. Gilmore was sitting at the teacher’s desk in the front of the room when Altercation No. 1 started. When J.G. “dumped [J.C.] out of the chair,” [to start the altercation], [Ms. Gilmore] told J.G. to “knock it off,” and when J.G. had J.C. on the floor, she [Ms. Gilmore] “told him to quit.” Ms. Gilmore testified that she didn’t call for help because “It was over.” Her testimony is not credible because the recording shows that J.G. then pulled J.C. up to a standing position, and continued to taunt him. Further, Respondents’ Exhibit 16 is a discipline referral that Ms. Gilmore authored on January 9, the day of the altercations. Ms. Gilmore documented in this discipline referral the following “PROBLEM – EXPLAIN:” During Science class, 5th period, [J.G.] was talking about how he fights and got into an altercation with another student. Words were exchanged and [J.G.] didn’t like what the student [J.C.] said so he [J.G.] flipped him [J.C.] out of his chair, kicked him [J.C.] a couple times and threatened to kill the other student [J.C.] by stomping on his [J.C.’s] heart. Ms. Sagar was seated at a desk assisting another student, J.M., when Altercation No. 1 started. Ms. Sagar did not hear any loud shouting or threats at the beginning of Altercation No. 1, but it escalated to the point where she was “alarmed.” Ms. Sagar admitted that she got up to leave the room, then decided not to do so, telling herself: “I shouldn’t leave the class at this time.” The reason she did not leave the classroom was because the altercation “wasn’t settled like down, down, down. It still had like the talking and everybody, so I turned around and came back to my seat.” Ms. Sagar did not move to intervene or call for help. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar moved to intervene in Altercation No. 1, and neither used the walkie-talkie or the telephone to call for assistance or to alert the administration of the volatile situation. A few minutes later another altercation (Altercation No. 2) took place in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. also recorded Altercation No. 2 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8) on her cellphone. J.G. was again taunting J.C. J.G. dared J.C. to “take a swing” at J.G. J.C. did not swing at J.G. J.G. proceeded to talk to the class about J.C. and other classmates. J.C. then expressed his desire to die because his life “sucks,” his father was dead, and his step-father didn’t love him. J.C. violently kicked/pushed a chair several feet away from himself, began to cry, stated that he’d be “happy if you [J.G.] kill me,” violently overturned a desk, and walked out of the EBD self- contained classroom. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the EBD self-contained classroom, and observed Altercation No. 2. During Altercation No. 2, Ms. Gilmore was at the front of the class at the teacher’s desk. Ms. Gilmore confirmed that J.C. “flipped a desk and walked out of class.” Ms. Gilmore testified she “opened the door, . . . and put myself at the doorway to get the rest of the kids out of the class if I had to get them out.” Ms. Gilmore is briefly partially seen in the recording, and she is heard asking J.C. to pick up the desk before he left the classroom. J.C. did not pick up the desk. The recording shows Ms. Sagar seated at a work table with J.M. At one point Ms. Sagar rises from her seat, walks to a counter with a microwave, stays at the counter for a short time, returns to her seat, and then eats something while Altercation No. 2 is on-going. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar used the walkie- talkie or telephone to obtain assistance or alert the administration of the continuing volatile situation. J.C. went to the dean of students (Ms. Rice’s) office after he walked out of the EBD self-contained classroom. Once there, he screamed at Ms. Rice about the events that had just taken place in his classroom. Ms. Rice observed J.C. to be distraught and angry. Based on J.C.’s comments, Ms. Rice understood that a recording of the classroom events was made. Ms. Rice requested the principal to obtain the recording. Between when J.C. left the EBD self-contained classroom and when the principal arrived at the EBD self-contained classroom to retrieve the recording, yet another altercation, Altercation No. 3, occurred. J.T. started recording Altercation No. 3 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 10) on her cellphone. Student W.F. held a chair over his head and threatened to throw it at another student, D.S. The other students in the classroom can be heard urging W.F. to throw it, but W.F. did not. J.G. can be seen standing behind D.S., and heard to say he’ll “make sure it hit[s] you [D.S.].” When it became apparent that W.F. was not going to throw the chair, J.T. handed her phone to W.F., who continued to record the action, and J.T. threw the chair. J.T. testified that she did not intend to hurt D.S., but she was not “play acting.” Ms. Gilmore testified she did not remember much of Altercation No. 3. She thought she might have been writing a referral at her desk, and did not call for help because the altercation was over so quickly. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the classroom, observed Altercation No. 3, and did nothing to radio or call for assistance or alert the administration of the volatile situation. There is no credible evidence that any of the altercations were pretend fights, or that they were staged for the benefit of the other students. Ms. Gilmore’s contention, that the altercations were staged, is not credible. This EBD self-contained classroom is a challenging class, one that should be closely monitored and adequately staffed to ensure learning can occur, and safety maintained. Respondents never attempted to gain control of the classroom or students. They never called for help or removed the other students from the area. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Osceola County School Board, enter a final order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
Findings Of Fact During the 1988/1989 school year, Shawanna Shaw was a student in the sixth grade at Madison Middle School. During the 1988/1989 school year Respondent was a student in the reading class of Ms. Willson. At the beginning of the school year Respondent's performance and conduct were acceptable. Shortly thereafter, however, Respondent began to demonstrate a severe disinterest in school. She would only complete about 10% of the homework assignments, would come to class without materials and otherwise unprepared, and refused to do work in class. Moreover, Respondent fell into a pattern of disruptive behavior which seriously interfered with the learning activities in the classroom. This behavior included yelling out in class, thereby breaking the silence required in a reading classroom, and showing open disrespect to her teacher by defying her authority and using abusive and foul language towards her. Respondent's behavior in Ms. Willson's class became so disruptive and unproductive that she was relegated to a separate table so as to separate her from other students. During these separations Respondent would sleep and did not benefit from any of the classroom activities. On other occasions, Respondent would defy her teacher's authority by simply leaving the room without permission. Ms. Willson attempted to improve Respondent's conduct in school by different methods, including a conference with the mother. Notwithstanding, there was no positive change in Respondent's behavior. As a result of Respondent's failure to make progress and depriving other students of making progress, she received a grade of "F3F," which constitutes a failing academic and conduct grade and the lowest rating for effort. Respondent was assigned to Ms. Ruddy, one of the school counselors, during the 1988/1989 school year. Because of the frequent conflicts that Respondent had with different teachers and the fact that she was not making progress Ms. Ruddy spent a disproportionate amount of time with her. Efforts by Ms. Ruddy to reactivate Respondent's interest in school were to no avail. Conferences with Respondent and her parents were ineffective. Respondent's skipping of classes became chronic; frequently Ms. Ruddy would find Respondent wandering the halls during normal class times. Further, Respondent frequently tried to engage other students in fighting both during classes and after school, and on one occasion Respondent pushed another student down the stairs. These latter acts can warrant expulsion. Like other schools within the Dade County School District, it is the practice at Madison Middle School for teachers and administrators to document troublesome student behavior. Written reports are made on Student Case Management Referral Forms, which are reserved to document serious behavior problems. Between September 8, 1988, and January 10, 1989, Respondent received eight Referral Forms from her teachers relating to disruptive and otherwise unacceptable conduct. Ms. Ruddy and the assistant principal, Barbara P. Bell, had numerous conferences with Respondent and her mother in an attempt to improve Respondent's behavior. Numerous techniques were considered, and in the process it was determined that the misbehavior of Respondent was not due to any learning disability, but was primarily the result of poor discipline. Madison Middle School is not geared to address the peculiar needs of students nor can it provide individual students with continuous special attention. For example, Ms. Ruddy, as a guidance counselor, has between 550 and 600 students assigned to her for counseling. The number of students assigned to her simply precludes any sort of in-depth, continuous, or special counseling for Respondent. By contrast, in an opportunity school there are far more counselors available to help develop students with individualized and continuous assistance. Moreover, at an opportunity school there is a full-time psychologist on staff, and the student to teacher ratio is less than half of what it is in a regular school program. As such, students can be provided with a much more structured and individualized program at an opportunity school. Both Ms. Ruddy and Ms. Bell are of the opinion that Respondent is simply not making any progress at Madison Middle School, and her disruptive behavior is preventing other students from benefiting from normal classroom activities. The more structured environment of an opportunity school could be of great benefit to Respondent and help her to resolve the discipline problems she is experiencing. Because of Respondent's poor grades, unacceptable conduct, and behavior which deprived other students of a learning experience, a child study team conference between teachers and an administrator was held at which the decision was reached to administratively assign Respondent to an opportunity school. At various times during the 1988/1989 school year Respondent's mother has requested that Respondent be tested for a learning disability and has refused consent for such testing. She has also requested that Respondent be transferred to the Opportunity School voluntarily and has refused to allow Respondent to be so transferred. During the course of the final hearing, Petitioner agreed that Respondent would be psychologically evaluated by Petitioner, resulting from the parent's request that such evaluation be performed. Although Respondent's Stanford Achievement Test scores are low to below average, it is the opinion of the school personnel having repeated contact with Respondent that her disruptive behavior and failure to do her work are not the result of a learning disability since she has been doing her work prior to October of 1988. They believe her conduct to be a result of lack of discipline. It is expected, however, that should the psychological evaluation indicate the possibility of a learning disability, the School Board of Dade County and Respondent's mother would permit and provide the appropriate testing to determine the presence of any learning disability in order to assist Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Shawanna Shaw to the Opportunity School Program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North until such time as her performance reveals that she can be returned to the regular school program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Frank A. Howard, Jr., Esquire Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Mrs. Alberta Shaw 2360 N.W. 90th Street Miami, FL 33147
