The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds, and at all relevant times, held a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate. Respondent is and, at all relevant times, was a fifth- grade teacher at Avon Park Elementary School in Highlands County. Respondent has been an elementary school teacher for 19 years. She taught fourth and fifth grade at Zolfo Springs Elementary School in Hardee County from 1986 through the end of the 2000-01 school year. She started teaching at Avon Park Elementary School at the beginning of the 2001-02 school year. Respondent is currently on a year-to-year contract. Her contract was renewed for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years notwithstanding the allegations in this case, which occurred during the 2002-03 school year. Respondent has not had any disciplinary problems over the course of her career, and other than the allegations in this case, she has never been accused of any unethical or unprofessional conduct. Respondent has always received good annual performance evaluations. Respondent’s most recent performance evaluations - - for the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years –- state that she “meets or exceeds expectations” in all categories, including the category that assesses whether Respondent “act[s] in a professional and ethical manner and adhere[s] to the Code and Principles of Professional Conduct.” Consistent with the information in Respondent’s annual performance evaluations, the principal at Avon Park Elementary School, who is Respondent’s current supervisor, testified that Respondent “does a good job” as a teacher and that she values Respondent quite highly as a teacher; the former principal at Zolfo Springs Elementary School, who was Respondent’s supervisor for approximately five of the years that Respondent taught at that school, testified that Respondent’s reputation for complying with the code of ethics is “excellent” and that Respondent always “monitored and cherished” her professionalism; one of Respondent’s co-workers at Avon Park Elementary School testified that Respondent is “a very effective and professional teacher”; and the students who testified at the hearing characterized Respondent as a good teacher. Respondent has administered the FCAT to her students since the test’s inception in the 1990s, and as a result, she is very familiar with what teachers can and cannot do when administering the test. Respondent and other teachers at Avon Park Elementary School received training on the administration of the 2003 FCAT, and as part of the training, Respondent received a copy of the Test Administration Manual for the 2003 FCAT. The Test Administration Manual is published by the state Department of Education (Department) and is distributed to teachers by the testing coordinators at each school. The school-level testing coordinators report to a testing coordinator at the school district level, who is ultimately responsible for the administration of the FCAT to the district’s students. The Test Administration Manual summarizes the “dos and don’ts” of test administration for the FCAT. It also includes a copy of the statute and rule governing test security, which for the 2003 FCAT were Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.042. On the issue of test security, the Test Administration Manual explains that: it is not appropriate to talk with [students] about any test item or to help them answer any test item. For example, if students finish the test before the allotted time for the session has elapsed, or have not attempted to complete a question, it would be appropriate to encourage them to go back and check their work. It is not acceptable to provide the students with any information that would allow them to infer the correct answer, such as suggesting that they might want to check their work on a specific question. (Emphasis in original). The FCAT is required by state law to be administered annually to public school students in the third through tenth grades to measure the students’ proficiency in reading, writing, science, and math. The FCAT measures the students’ performance against state standards. The Norm Referenced Test (NRT), which is administered in conjunction with the FCAT, measures the students’ performance in math and reading against national standards. The FCAT is an important test, both to students and the schools. The student’s promotion to the next grade and/or class placement is affected to some degree by his or her performance on the FCAT. The school’s grade, which has an impact on the funding that the school district receives from the state, is also affected to some degree by the students’ performance on the FCAT. The math and reading portions of the 2003 FCAT were administered to fifth graders on Monday through Wednesday, March 3-5, 2003. The science portion of the FCAT and the NRT were administered the following week, on Monday through Wednesday, March 10-12, 2003. Throughout the 2002-03 school year, Respondent “taught the FCAT” and gave her class practice FCAT questions. She used the questions as teaching tools and to help prepare her students for the actual FCAT. Respondent would sometimes explain the wording of the practice questions to her students and, as needed, she would provide the students other assistance, both individually and as a class, while they were working on the practice questions. On Friday, February 28, 2003, Respondent administered two practice tests to her students in which she tried to simulate the environment in which the students would be taking the actual FCAT the following week. For example, the tests were timed and Respondent walked around the room as she proctored the tests. Respondent helped the students during the practice tests as she had done with the practice questions administered throughout the year. At one point, she stopped the test and reviewed a math problem on the board with the class because she observed a number of students having problems with a particular question. Respondent administered the math and reading portions of the actual FCAT to 18 students in her homeroom class on March 3-5, 2003. None of those students were exceptional education students who were entitled to special accommodations. Respondent did a 15 to 20 minute “mini-review” each morning that the students were taking the actual FCAT during which she went over terminology and concepts that the students might see on the test that day. Respondent started the administration of the actual FCAT by reading the directions verbatim from the “scripts” in the Test Administration Manual. Once the students began taking the test, she monitored them from her desk and she also walked around the room on a periodic basis. Respondent also went to students’ desks when they raised their hands. The Test Administration Manual contemplates that students might raise their hands and ask questions during the test; indeed, the “scripts” that the teacher is required to read verbatim state more than once, “Please raise your hand if you have any questions.” Respondent denied giving the students any assistance in answering the test questions on the actual FCAT. According to Respondent, when a student asked her about a particular test question, she told the student that “I can’t help you,” “go back and re-read the directions,” “do the best you can,” or other words to that effect. The Department’s testing coordinator, Victoria Ash, testified that responses such as those are acceptable. Respondent also made a general statement to the class during the test reminding the students to go back and check their work if they finished the test before the allotted time expired. Ms. Ash testified that a general reminder such as that is “absolutely acceptable.” Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by student J.M., who credibly testified that he recalled more than once hearing Respondent tell other students that she could not help them during the actual FCAT. Several students testified that Respondent helped them during the actual FCAT by explaining words that they did not understand, explaining how to solve math problems, and/or by suggesting that they check their work on particular problems. That testimony was not persuasive because it lacked specificity and precision, and other than A.P., B.B. (boy), and K.J., the students testified that they were not certain that the help they remembered receiving was on the actual FCAT rather than on the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. With respect to B.B. (boy), the undersigned did not find his testimony persuasive because he also testified that Respondent helped the entire class with a math problem during the actual test, which contradicted the statements given by the other students and which suggests that he was recalling events from the practice test during which Respondent gave such help to the entire class. With respect to A.P. and K.J., the undersigned did not find them to be particularly credible witnesses based upon their demeanors while testifying. There were other inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of Respondent’s administration of the FCAT that make their testimony generally unpersuasive. For example, B.B. (girl) testified that Respondent played classical music during the actual test, which was not corroborated by any other student in the class and was contradicted by Respondent’s credible testimony that she played music during the practice tests to relax the students but that she and the other fifth-grade teachers at Avon Park Elementary School made a conscious decision not to play music during the actual FCAT. As a result of the students’ apparent confusion regarding events occurring during practice tests rather than the actual FCAT, the inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of the events during the administration of the test, the general lack of specificity and precision in the students’ accounts of the events, and Respondent’s credible denial of any wrongdoing, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish the truth of the allegations against Respondent. In making the foregoing finding, due consideration was given to the investigation undertaken by the district-level testing coordinator, Rebecca Fleck, at the time of the allegations against Respondent, and the materials generated through that investigation. The reason for the investigation was a phone call that Ms. Fleck received on Wednesday, March 5, 2003, from a Department employee who told Ms. Fleck that the Department had received an anonymous complaint about Respondent’s administration of the FCAT. Ms. Fleck went to Avon Park Elementary School on Friday, March 7, 2003, to investigate the complaint. On that date, she met with the school’s assistant principal and interviewed several of the students in Respondent’s class. She also spoke briefly with Respondent to “get her side of the story,” which consistent with her testimony at the hearing, was an unequivocal denial of any wrongdoing. Ms. Fleck decided, based upon the student interviews, that Respondent should not administer the science portion of the FCAT or the NRT the following week. As a result, Respondent was assigned to work at the school district office on March 10-12, 2003, while her students were taking the tests on those dates. Ms. Fleck also decided to interview and get statements from all of the students in Respondent’s class, which she did on the following Monday and Tuesday, March 10 and 11, 2003. On those days, the students were called to the principal’s office in groups of two or three and they were asked to fill out a questionnaire developed by Ms. Fleck. Pam Burnaham, the principal of Avon Park Elementary School, and Ms. Fleck supervised the students while they filled out the questionnaires. The students were not told that Ms. Fleck was investigating alleged wrongdoing by Respondent; they were told that the purpose of the questionnaire was to find out about their “FCAT experience.” Ms. Fleck testified that she was confident that the students understood that the questionnaire related only to the actual FCAT and not any of the practice tests administered by Respondent; however, Ms. Burnaham testified that she did not place any emphasis on the distinction, and as noted above, the students’ testimony at the hearing indicates that they may have been confused on this issue. Ms. Fleck concluded based upon the students’ responses on the questionnaires that Respondent “coached” the students during the administration of the actual FCAT. As a result, she invalidated the tests of all 18 students in Respondent’s class. Ms. Fleck’s decision to invalidate the students’ tests was not unreasonable based upon what she was told by the students, which she believed to be true; however, the invalidation of the tests is not sufficient in and of itself to impose discipline on Respondent because, as discussed above, the truth of the students’ allegations was not clearly and convincingly proven at the hearing. Several of the students gave written statements to a Department investigator in late May 2003 regarding the help that they recalled being given by Respondent on the FCAT. No weight is given to those statements because no credible evidence was presented regarding the circumstances under which the statements were made, the statements were made several months after the events described in the statements, and as was the case with the questionnaires the students filled out for Ms. Fleck, the undersigned is not persuaded that the students understood at the time they were giving the statements that they were describing events that occurred during the actual FCAT rather than the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the students in Respondent’s class whose tests were invalidated suffered any adverse educational consequences. Even though the school administrators did not have the benefit of the students’ FCAT scores for purposes of placement and/or developing a remediation plan, they had other information on which they could make those decisions, including the students’ scores on the NRT, which was administered the week after the FCAT and was not invalidated. Other than being reassigned to the school district office during the administration of the NRT, Respondent did not suffer any adverse employment consequences from the school district as a result of the students’ allegations and/or the invalidation of the students’ tests. To the contrary, Respondent continued to get good performance reviews and her contract has been renewed twice since the administration of the 2003 FCAT. Respondent did not administer the 2004 FCAT because this case was still pending. She was given other duties at Avon Park Elementary School while her students were taking the 2004 FCAT.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner against Respondent are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida teacher, holding Florida Educator's Certificate 780153 (covering the area of Emotionally Handicapped education) valid through June 30, 2007. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher of emotionally handicapped third-grade students at Skycrest Elementary School in the Pinellas County School District. Respondent was employed by the Pinellas County School Board as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students for more than six years. The Pinellas County School District assessed student and instructional performance through the use of the "Pinellas Instructional Assessment Portfolio." The portfolio consisted of two tests administered three times each school year. The tests were known as the "Parallel Reading-Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test" and the "Parallel Math-Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test." The portfolio tests were used by the school district to gauge progress towards meeting the Sunshine State Standards established by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) to determine the academic achievement of Florida students. The portfolio tests, administered over a two-day period, also served to prepare students to take the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The FCAT was administered according to requirements established though the DOE and was designed to measure progress towards meeting Sunshine State Standards. Third-grade students were required to achieve a passing score on the FCAT in order to move into the fourth grade. One of the purposes of the portfolio tests was to measure student progress and provide information relative to each student's abilities. Based on test results, additional instruction was provided to remedy academic deficiencies and further prepare students to pass the FCAT. Emotionally handicapped students were required to take the reading and the math portfolio tests. The school district had specific procedures in place related to administration of the tests. Teachers responsible for administration of the tests received instruction on appropriate test practices. Respondent was aware of the rules governing administration of the tests. The procedures permitted teachers to offer general encouragement to students, but teachers were prohibited from offering assistance. Teachers were not allowed to read questions to students. Teachers were not permitted to provide any information to students related to the content of test responses. During the December 2002 testing period, Respondent provided improper assistance to the nine emotionally handicapped students he taught. During the test, Respondent reviewed student answers to multiple-choice questions and advised students to work harder on the answers, indicating that the answers were incorrect. Respondent assisted students by reading questions, helping students to pronounce words and phrases, and advising students as to the location in the test materials where answers could be found. Some of Respondent's students were apparently overwhelmed by the test process and ceased working on the tests. Respondent reviewed their progress and advised the students to continue answering questions. There is no evidence that Respondent directly provided answers to students, but Respondent clearly assisted students to determine which responses were correct. The assistance provided by Respondent to his students exceeded that which was allowed under test rules. Respondent acknowledged that the assistance was inappropriate, but asserted that he did so to provide confidence to the students that they could take and pass the FCAT, and advance to the fourth grade. Respondent's improper assistance to his students prevented school officials from obtaining an accurate measurement of the academic abilities of his students. The test results were invalidated and the students were retested. According to the parties, a newspaper article related to the matter was published in a local newspaper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, Esquire Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Harriett S. Parets, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, and dated July 27, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner filed his Administrative Complaint on July 27, 2004, alleging certain material allegations and Statutory and Rule violations and seeking an appropriate penalty pursuant to the authority provided to the Education Practices Commission in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent filed her Election of Rights and requested a formal hearing on August 23, 2004. The parties’ previous attempt at resolving this matter met without success, and a formal hearing was requested which was scheduled for March 1 and 2, 2006. 2. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Harriett Parets, was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Broward County School District. 3. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate Number 592721. Her certificate covers the areas of elementary education and English for Speakers of Other Languages. It is valid through June 30, 2008. 4. Prior to the incidents complained of in this cause, Respondent taught in the Broward County School District without discipline for six years. Respondent was in her seventh year with the system when the allegations of this case arose. 5. Respondent had no prior disciplinary concerns. 6. Respondent had received satisfactory evaluations every year. 7. Respondent had administered the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) on five prior occasions without incident. 8. During the 2002 school year Respondent was assigned to teach fourth grade at McNab Elementary School (McNab). Her class was scheduled to take the FCAT on March 11 through 13, 2003. 9. Prior to the dates of testing, teachers at McNab were instructed to view a resource video. The video instructed and directed the teachers in the administration of the FCAT. It included information not previously addressed by the video. 10. Additionally, teachers at McNab were provided testing procedures to guide the administration of the FCAT. Teachers were to follow specifically worded texts in the directions provided to their students. A verbatim reading of the text was required by the FCAT testing protocols. Additional comments outside the text were prohibited. 11. Teachers at McNab were advised on the importance of the FCAT results, the requirement of adhering to the testing protocols, and the opportunities available to the school should McNab students perform well on the FCAT. 12. In fact, as McNab had received an “A” rating in the past (following good FCAT results), the school had received special funding tied to that performance. 13. In connection with the FCAT testing at issue herein, McNab administrators took precautions to provide test administrators with the schedule of the exam dates, the materials needed to administer the test, and training in the proper administration of the FCAT. Testing protocols were reviewed. 14. Proctors also received training regarding the administration of the exam. Each class was assigned a proctor along with the teacher who was primarily responsible for the test administration. 15. In this case, the proctor and several students verified comments from Respondent that deviated from the scripted instructions. 16. Contrary to the scripted instructions Respondent looked at the students’ test booklets, told more than one student to re-examine their work for errors, and pointed out a wrong answer. Respondent announced to the class as a whole that she was “seeing a lot of wrong answers.” 17. The Respondent was not authorized to make comments during the administration of the test. More important, the Respondent was not permitted to assist by any means the students who were taking the FCAT. 18. Respondent admitted that she did not watch the FCAT training video (known in this record as the BECON video). Respondent knew or should have known that she had been directed to watch the video. 19. Respondent admitted that she made comments to students that were beyond the scripted instructions provided in the teacher’s testing manual. 20. The issues of Respondent’s comments to the class and the level of assistance she had provided to students came to light when a student told her mother of Respondent’s conduct. The mother then contacted a school administrator to make the alleged improprieties known. 21. After determining that Respondent had assisted students in her class, administrators invalidated the test results from Respondent’s class. 22. As a result of the invalidation, the school did not have a sufficient number of test results to qualify as an “A” performing school under the state guidelines. Had the results from Respondent’s class been included, the school might have qualified and received recognition as it had in the past. 23. Following a formal hearing on the identical facts, the school district suspended Respondent for thirty (30) days. 24. Respondent has proctored the FCAT every year since the incident, including this year, without problem. 25. The District found that a 30-day suspension plus training was sufficient discipline.
Conclusions Stipulated Conclusions. 26. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. 27. Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this case to establish the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner has met that burden. 28. Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, governs FCAT security and prohibits anyone from coaching students or assisting them in any manner in the administration of the exam. 29. Additionally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.042 prohibits interfering “in any way” with persons who are taking the FCAT in order to assist their performance. Clearly, Respondent inappropriately assisted students in her classroom. Had she watched the BECON video or more closely read the FCAT manual, she would have known that the comments and actions she made were inappropriate. The importance of test security was well known to all teachers. 30. By deciding to only suspend Respondent (as opposed to dismissal), Petitioner has recognized her past contribution to the school district. That Respondent blames others for her violation of testing protocols is regrettable. Petitioner has established that Respondent violated testing protocols and should be disciplined. 31. Respondent has violated the statutory rule violations alleged in Counts 1 through 4 of the Administrative Complaint. Other Conclusions. 32. Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, gives the Education Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “EPC”) the power to suspend or revoke the teaching certificate of any person, either for a set period of time or permanently, or to impose any penalty provided by law, if he or she is guilty of certain acts specified in the statute. 33. The Commissioner has alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes; in Count 2, that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(10(f), Florida Statutes; and in Count 3, that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes. 34. Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be disciplined if he or she "[h]as been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude." 35. Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be disciplined if he or she “has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person’s effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.” 36. Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be disciplined if he or she “[h]as violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.” The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles") are set out in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 6B-1.006. Having failed to reference any particular part of the Principles, it is assumed that the allegations of Count 4 are intended to refer to the actual portion of the Principles Respondent violated. Count 4 charges that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), which requires that teachers “make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” 37. Given the parties’ stipulation that “Respondent has violated the statutory rule violations alleged in Counts 1 through 4 of the Administrative Complaint,” the only issue which remains to be decided in this case is the appropriate penalty. In recommending a penalty, however, the extent to which the facts stipulated to by the parties actually supports their stipulation as to the statutory and rule violations must be considered. In particular, the Commission should take into account that the facts actually do not support the conclusion that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the basis for the alleged violation in Count 1. 38. The terms "gross immorality" and "an act involving moral turpitude" are not defined in Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes. See Sherburne v. School Board of Suwannee County, 455 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009, which applies to dismissal actions initiated by school boards against instructional personnel, does, however, provide guidance as to the meaning of the terms as they are used in Section 1012.795, Florida Statutes. See Castor v. Lawless, 1992 WL 880829 *10 (EPC Final Order 1992). 39. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2) defines "immorality" as follows: Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community. 40. "Gross immorality" has been defined by the courts as misconduct that is more egregious than mere "immorality": The term "gross" in conjunction with "immorality" has heretofore been found to mean "immorality which involves an act of misconduct that is serious, rather than minor in nature, and which constitutes a flagrant disregard of proper moral standards." Education Practices Commission v. Knox, 3 FALR 1373-A (Department of Education 1981). Frank T. Brogan v. Eston Mansfield, DOAH Case No. 96-0286 (EPC Final Order 1996). 41. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(6) defines "moral turpitude" as follows: Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. 42. The court in State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 146 So. 660, 661 (1933), observed that moral turpitude: involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society. . . . It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not contemplated. 43. In determining whether any teacher is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, it must be remembered that "[b]y virtue of their leadership capacity, teachers are traditionally held to a high moral standard in a community." Adams v. Professional Practices Council, 406 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). 44. The acts committed by Respondent in this case were not sufficiently egregious to constitute gross immorality or acts involving moral turpitude. Respondent’s conduct, while inconsistent with the conduct expected of a teacher administering the FCAT, does not constitute an act ". . . which constitutes a flagrant disregard of proper moral standards" or an act of "inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society." 45. As for the violation of Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, while the parties have stipulated that Respondent's conduct reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, the facts show that the School Board has considered Respondent's effectiveness as an employee adequate to continue her in its employment and to continue allowing her to administer the FCAT. 46. While clearly inappropriate conduct on the part of the Respondent, her conduct barely constitutes a violation of the other statutory violation alleged in Count 3. Recommended Penalty. 47. Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, gives the EPC the following disciplinary authority: The Education Practices Commission may suspend the educator certificate of any person as defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3) for a period of time not to exceed 5 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); may revoke the educator certificate of any person, thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); may revoke permanently the educator certificate of any person thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students; may suspend the educator certificate, upon order of the court, of any person found to have a delinquent child support obligation; or may impose any other penalty provided by law, . . . provided it can be shown that the person [violated one of the subsections that follow]. 48. In its Proposed Recommended Order for Appropriate Penalty, Petitioner has requested that it be recommended that Respondent’s certificate be permanently revoked and that she be permanently barred from re-application. Respondent has requested that it be recommended that Respondent’s 30-day suspension by the Broward County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the “School Board”) serve as her penalty in this case. In the alternative, Respondent has suggested that a one- year period of probation be added to the already served suspension. 49. In deciding the appropriate penalty to recommend in this case, consideration has been given to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.007(3), which provides aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty in a case such as this: (3) Based upon consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors present in an individual case, the Commission may deviate from the penalties recommended in subsection (2). The Commission may consider the following as aggravating or mitigating factors: The severity of the offense; The danger to the public; The number of repetitions of offenses; The length of time since the violation; The number of times the educator has been previously disciplined by the Commission. The length of time the educator has practiced and the contribution as an educator; The actual damage, physical or otherwise, caused by the violation; The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed; The effect of the penalty upon the educator’s livelihood; Any effort of rehabilitation by the educator; The actual knowledge of the educator pertaining to the violation; Employment status; Attempts by the educator to correct or stop the violation or refusal by the licensee to correct or stop the violation; Related violations against the educator in another state including findings of guilt or innocence, penalties imposed and penalties served; Actual negligence of the educator pertaining to any violation; Penalties imposed for related offenses under subsection (2) above; Pecuniary benefit or self-gain inuring to the educator; Degree of physical and mental harm to a student or a child; Present status of physical and/or mental condition contributing to the violation including recovery from addiction; Any other relevant mitigating or aggravating factors under the circumstances. 50. Based upon the facts stipulated to by the parties, the following mitigating circumstances exist: the offense in this case is a single, isolated one; the actual danger to the public in this incident was minimal; it has been three years since the violation occurred (and in the interim, Respondent has continued to monitor the FCAT without incident); and Respondent has not been previously disciplined by the EPC. 51. The following aggravating circumstances have been shown to exist: Respondent actions deprived students of the educational process, likely resulting in the loss of school funding and hindering the school’s ratings; and a harsh penalty will send the message that Respondent’s conduct will not be tolerated. 52. Petitioner has argued that an additional aggravating circumstance is the failure of any evidence that Respondent has been rehabilitated. In particular, Petitioner has suggested that Respondent lacks any rehabilitation because she has “consistently accused other individuals, including the FCAT’s administrators and supervisors, for her misdeeds rather than accepting the blame.” Petitioner’s argument on this point must be rejected. First, there is no stipulated fact or any evidence that has been offered in this case to support Petitioner’s position. Secondly, Petitioner has failed to consider the fact that Respondent has agreed to the stipulated facts and law which form the basis of this Recommended Order. 53. Ultimately, in recommending a penalty in this case, the most important considerations in this matter should be the extent to which Respondent actually violated the provision alleged in the Administrative Complaint, which has been addressed, supra, and the action taken by Respondent’s employer, the School Board. 54. The extent to which Respondent actually violated the provisions alleged in the Administrative Complaint has been discussed, supra. 55. Just as significantly, the School Board, which, along with the parents and children it serves, suffered the actual harm of Respondent’s conduct, concluded that Respondent was adequately punished by a 30-day suspension rather than termination of her employment. The School Board, therefore, has indicated a willingness to continue to employ Respondent, something it will no longer be able to do if Petitioner’s recommended penalty is carried out. Nor will the School Board be able to continue Respondent’s employment if Petitioner were to suspend Respondent’s certificate for any period of time. 56. Given the School Board’s decision to continue to employ Respondent, any discipline taken by Petitioner should be limited to discipline which will not thwart the local government’s decision to continue to employ Respondent. A suspension of 30 days, considered already served at the time she served her School Board imposed suspension; five years probation; and a requirement that Respondent attend, at her own expense, any seminars or courses the EPC deems appropriate is an appropriate penalty in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing the following penalty: (1) suspending her teaching certificate for 30 days, such suspension to be considered already served; (2) placing her on probation for five years subject to any conditions deemed appropriate by the EPC; and (3) requiring her to attend, at her own expense, any seminars or courses the EPC deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this day 4th day April of, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 4th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lake County School Board, has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, teacher Deborah Harkleroad.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Deborah Harkleroad has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for ten years. She is a member of the Lake County Education Association, the collective bargaining unit for teaching personnel. She is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Lake County Education Association (the "CBA"), and holds a professional service contract with the School Board pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes.1/ During the first two years of her employment, the 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003 school years, Ms. Harkleroad was assigned to Tavares Middle School. At the start of her third year in the fall of 2003, she transferred to Fruitland Park as that school's first elementary literacy coach. During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Harkleroad transitioned into teaching a regular third-grade class at Fruitland Park. She remained in that position during the 2009- 2010 school year. The School Board employs a performance evaluation methodology called "Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System" or "IPPAS." The standards for evaluation, the methodology to be used by evaluators, and the documents used in the evaluation of instructional personnel are set forth in the IPPAS Handbook. Article XI of the CBA acknowledges that the IPPAS is the vehicle for the evaluation and assessment of teachers employed by the School Board. Section 7 of Article XI of the CBA provides that an IPPAS Joint Committee composed of an equal number of representatives of the School Board and the Lake County Education Association will coordinate and monitor the development and implementation of the assessment process. Section 12 of Article XI of the CBA states that any teacher in danger of dismissal because of poor performance will be afforded the procedure set forth in section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. This procedure is given the colloquial acronym "NEAT," which stands for: N-- Notice of alleged deficiencies which, if not corrected, would lead to dismissal; E-- Explanation to the teacher of alleged deficiencies and suggestions for correction; A-- Assistance rendered by the administration to correct alleged deficiencies; and T-- Time for alleged deficiencies to be corrected. In accordance with the CBA and the IPPAS Handbook, the School Board evaluates teacher performance using an "Observation/Assessment of Professional Performance Standards" form in a procedure called an "Appraisal I." The Appraisal I is the standard evaluation for teachers employed by the School Board. The Observation/Assessment form contains 6 sections and subsections. The subsections are further divided into sub- subsections. The evaluator gives the teacher a score of "acceptable" or "unacceptable" in each sub-subsection. The overall evaluation is graded on a 12-point scale, one point for each of the 12 subsections. If the teacher's performance is graded unacceptable in even one sub-subsection, then the teacher receives an unacceptable score for the overall subsection. The only acceptable overall score on the Observation/Assessment form is a perfect 12. If a teacher does not receive an acceptable score in each of the 12 subsections, then the teacher's overall performance is deemed deficient. A deficient Appraisal I triggers the NEAT procedure and further evaluations. The IPPAS provides a voluntary alternative evaluation for experienced teachers who have received scores of 12 on the Appraisal I for the two immediately preceding years and have a professional service contract with the School Board. This alternative is called "PG-13," and allows the teacher to select a “professional growth” objective for the school year, work with an administrator in devising a strategy for attaining the objective, and demonstrate the attainment of the objective. Finally, the IPPAS contains an evaluation instrument called a "Professional/Personal Action Report Relating to Work Experience," or "Appraisal II." The Appraisal II is used to document individual instances of deficiency in a teacher's work performance that have been identified outside of the formal evaluation process. In order to become eligible for the voluntary PG-13, a teacher must have received no Appraisal II reports during the two years immediately preceding entry into PG-13. In order to remain eligible for the PG-13, a participating teacher must continue to meet the standard competency level for teaching performance, which includes receiving no Appraisal II reports. Since the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Harkleroad had participated in the PG-13 evaluation process every year except 2007-2008, when she had back surgery and was unable to complete her PG-13 project. For the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Harkleroad received an Appraisal I score of 12. On March 19, 2009, Ms. Harkleroad received an Appraisal II report from the principal of Fruitland Park, Melissa DeJarlais. The "Area of Concern" listed on the Appraisal II form was "Personal Characteristics and Professional Responsibilities." Dr. DeJarlais wrote the following explanation of Ms. Harkleroad's deficient performance: On 3-5-09, teachers required to administer the FCAT assessment were mandated to attend the annual FCAT administration training. Mrs. Harkleroad was observed nodding off and/or sleeping during this training. She later explained that she did not feel well and it was possible that her prescribed medication was causing her to be overly sedated. As a precautionary measure, Mrs. Harkleroad's testing responsibilities were changed to that of a proctor thus requiring us to assign another instructional person to her classroom for the express intention of administering the FCAT. Mrs. Harkleroad did not perform her proctoring duties and instead spent time working on school related activities not germane to FCAT testing. These activities included printing her substitute or lesson plans while students were actively taking the FCAT assessment thus compromising the testing environment. At the time she received the Appraisal II, Ms. Harkleroad wrote the following response: In response to the Professional/Personal Action Report dated 3-19-09, I was running a temperature of 102.6 and my blood pressure was dipping dangerously low due to being sick on 3-5-09. I should have taken a sick day on this date, but I didn't due to the diminishing amount of teaching time left before the FCAT. I did fully perform my duties as a proctor for the math FCAT testing, and I did not at any time perform the activities alleged. During the time when I was printing my students' cloze practice reading assignments, no students were actively taking the test. At the hearing, Dr. DeJarlais offered no first hand testimony regarding the allegation that Ms. Harkleroad did not perform her proctoring duties and printed documents in the classroom while the FCAT was being administered. She testified that she relied on the reports of the test administrator and the testing coordinator in issuing the Appraisal II to Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Harkleroad testified that, unlike the previous principals she had worked for at Fruitland Park, Dr. DeJarlais had never liked her or appreciated the extra work she did in compiling data that tracked student performance on the FCAT and other standardized tests. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she had always received "rave reviews" for the extra work she did in creating and maintaining the school wide data bank for tracking standardized test scores. She resented the fact that Dr. DeJarlais neglected to rave over the data notebooks when Ms. Harkleroad presented them to her. Ms. Harkleroad felt personally snubbed and concluded that Dr. DeJarlais did not like her. As to the events of March 5, 2009, Ms. Harkleroad surmised that the test administrator was trying to make "brownie points" with Dr. DeJarlais by maliciously reporting falsehoods about Ms. Harkleroad's actions in the classroom. Ms. Harkleroad asserted that the administrator was a friend of Dr. DeJarlais, and that the principal simply took the administrator's word for what happened without conducting any further investigation. Ms. Harkleroad disputed the incident to Dr. DeJarlais to the point of crying, and she was so upset she had to leave school early that day. She testified that at the time she was unaware that the CBA allowed her to file a union grievance over the Appraisal II. Neither party called the test administrator, Kimberly Belcher, to testify. Based on the testimony, the undersigned is not inclined to second-guess Dr. DeJarlais' decision to take the word of Ms. Belcher as to what occurred in the classroom on March 5, 2009. Ms. Harkleroad offered only speculation as to any motive Ms. Belcher had to concoct a story about Ms. Harkleroad's actions during the FCAT. To accept Ms. Harkleroad's version of events, it is necessary to believe not only that Dr. DeJarlais was out to get Ms. Harkleroad, but that Dr. DeJarlais' vendetta against Ms. Harkleroad was such common knowledge that Ms. Belcher knew she could win "brownie points" by lying about the teacher to the principal. The evidence does not support such a chain of inferences. Ms. Harkleroad testified that during the meeting about the Appraisal II, Dr. DeJarlais emphasized that she would no longer be eligible for the PG-13 evaluations and would have to revert to the Appraisal I evaluation. Ms. Harkleroad stated, "I knew then, when she told me that, that she was out to destroy my career." This extraordinary statement was premised on Ms. Harkleroad's assertion that she has a severe panic disorder that renders her unable to withstand the situation presented by an Appraisal I, in which she must teach while an evaluator sits in the room and judges her performance. Ms. Harkleroad asserted that Dr. DeJarlais was aware of this condition, and purposely contrived to force Ms. Harkleroad back into the Appraisal I process in order to get rid of her. At this point, it is useful to digress from the main narrative to provide a brief history of Ms. Harkleroad's medical travails. She testified that she has a severe form of stress or panic disorder that makes her paranoid and unable to function in situations in which she thinks people are judging her. Earlier in her career, she was able to control the panic attacks with a prescribed medication, Xanax (alprazolam), and was able to perform well in Appraisal I situations. At some unspecified time prior to the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Harkleroad underwent spinal fusion surgery. During the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Harkleroad was involved in an incident requiring her to restrain a kindergarten student who was throwing wooden chairs in the library. Ms. Harkleroad's back was injured. Ms. Harkleroad alleged that the School Board's contract workers' compensation physician misdiagnosed the injury and sent her back to work. Two years later, another physician examined Ms. Harkleroad's MRI from the incident and determined that her fusion had been shattered. During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Harkleroad had major back surgery that kept her away from school for 12 weeks. When she returned to work during the spring semester of 2008, she was in a body cast, followed by approximately five months in a brace. Ms. Harkleroad testified that the damage to her back was so severe that it could not be completely repaired. She was subject to muscle spasms due to pressure on her sciatic nerve. The pain became so severe that in February 2009 she began seeing a physician for pain management. The physician prescribed what Ms. Harkleroad called "pretty heavy duty" medications such as Oxycontin (oxycodone). Ms. Harkleroad's physicians advised her that Xanax cannot be taken with Oxycontin. Therefore, she was forced to forego her panic disorder medication after February 2009. Dr. DeJarlais came to Fruitland Park at the start of the 2008-2009 school year. Ms. Harkleroad was unsure how much Dr. DeJarlais knew about her medical history, though she specifically recalled telling Dr. DeJarlais that she was the teacher who had back surgery and came back in a body cast. Ms. Harkleroad also recalled that, in her first conversation with the new principal, she told Dr. DeJarlais about her panic disorder. Dr. DeJarlais testified that she was unaware that Ms. Harkleroad claimed any disabilities. She knew that Ms. Harkleroad took pain medications for her back, but knew no specifics about them. Ms. Harkleroad testified that at the time of the FCAT administration meeting on March 5, 2009, she was sick and had just started on the pain management medications. She had taken Nyquil for a cold on top of the Oxycontin, and the combination caused her to fall asleep at the meeting. As noted above, she absolutely denied the other statements in the Appraisal II. Shortly after receiving the Appraisal II, Ms. Harkleroad was involved in an automobile accident that kept her out of work for the remainder of the 2008-2009 school year. She had further surgical procedures on her back and remained on pain medications as the 2009-2010 school year began. Patricia Nave, a veteran administrator, arrived at Fruitland Park as assistant principal at the start of the 2009- 2010 school year. Dr. DeJarlais assigned Ms. Nave to conduct the Appraisal I performance evaluations of Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Nave did not know Ms. Harkleroad before August 2009, and testified she was not aware that Ms. Harkleroad had anxiety issues. On February 18, 2010, from 12:45 p.m. until 1:45 p.m., Ms. Nave observed Ms. Harkleroad and scored her on the Appraisal I form. Ms. Nave gave Ms. Harkleroad a score of 10 on the appraisal, rating her unsatisfactory in two of the 12 subsections. Under the section "Teaching Procedures," Ms. Harkleroad was rated unsatisfactory in the sub-subsection titled "Gives clear and explicit directions" within the subsection titled "Displays skills in making assignments." Under the section "Classroom Management," Ms. Harkleroad was rated unsatisfactory in the sub-subsections titled "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably" and "Provides conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors" within the subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which students are actively engaged in learning." In the area of Teaching Procedures, Ms. Nave testified that in making an assignment, the teacher is expected to use appropriate vocabulary. The teacher tells the students what the assignment is and when it is due, then checks with the students to ensure they comprehend the assignment before releasing them to do the work. Ms. Harkleroad did not make a comprehension check. She simply told the students what to do. In the area of Classroom Management, Ms. Nave had "many, many concerns" regarding Ms. Harkleroad's "conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors." Ms. Harkleroad made unacceptable comments to students throughout the lesson, such as: "I don't understand what you're not getting, probably because you're not paying attention," "Your rudeness scale is going up," and "You are all just counting, not paying attention to what you are counting." Ms. Nave found that Ms. Harkleroad was not setting a proper example to the students. The teacher is expected to be respectful and to set an example by being fair. Ms. Harkleroad was neither consistent nor fair. At times, she would scold the students for calling out without raising their hands, but at other times she would allow them to call out. Some children were walking around the room when they should have been sitting down for the lesson. Ms. Harkleroad admonished some of the students for walking around but allowed others to do it. She allowed the students to engage in off-task behavior. Ms. Harkleroad testified that in her experience, evaluations last for about 35 minutes. She testified that she was doing fine for the first 35 minutes of Ms. Nave's evaluation. However, when Ms. Nave stayed beyond the 35-minute mark, Ms. Harkleroad began to panic, believing that Ms. Nave intended to stay until she could find something wrong. Her performance fell apart in the latter part of the hour. Ms. Harkleroad stated that she told Ms. Nave about her panic disorder after the evaluation. Ms. Nave noted no dramatic change in Ms. Harkleroad's performance from the first half to the second half of her one- hour observation. Ms. Nave also had no recollection of Ms. Harkleroad discussing her panic disorder at any time, before or after the evaluation. When a teacher receives a deficient Appraisal I, the NEAT procedures require that the teacher also receive a Prescription/Assistance form to outline areas for improvement, recommendations on how to accomplish those improvements, and a time period for a follow-up observation. Ms. Nave met with Ms. Harkleroad on February 22, 2010 to go over the Prescription/Assistance form. Ms. Nave noted the areas of deficient performance and recommended that Ms. Harkleroad review sections of the IPPAS manual that prescribe methods for the areas in which she had been found deficient and watch certain DVDs on effective teaching methods. Ms. Nave gave Ms. Harkleroad four weeks, rather than the usual three weeks, to correct the deficiencies and undergo another observation. To further lessen the pressure on Ms. Harkleroad, Ms. Nave exercised her prerogative to use the February 18, 2010, Appraisal I as an "observation" rather than a formal appraisal that would be counted against Ms. Harkleroad. School Board records indicated that Ms. Harkleroad checked out the recommended DVDs from the Fruitland Park library. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she watched the DVDs. Ms. Nave performed a second Appraisal I on Ms. Harkleroad on March 26, 2010. This appraisal also resulted in a total score of 10. On this appraisal, deficiencies were found under the sections titled "Classroom Management" and "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter." As to Classroom Management, Ms. Harkleroad was rated unsatisfactory in the same sub-subsections as on the February 18, 2010, appraisal: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably" and "Provides conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors" within the subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which students are actively engaged in learning." As to Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter, Ms. Harkleroad's performance was found unsatisfactory in the sub-subsection titled "Uses questioning techniques" under the subsection titled "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." Ms. Nave testified that in the area of questioning techniques, the preferred technique is to ask a question, wait for the students to process the question, and then call on one student to answer the question. Ms. Harkleroad was asking "multiple questions," meaning that she would ask a question, then ask another question or ask the same question in a different way, before the students had a chance to respond. Ms. Nave stated that teachers are counseled not to ask multiple questions because it confuses the children. Ms. Nave stated that Ms. Harkleroad failed to exhibit another aspect of proper questioning. A teacher should ask a question, and then call the name of a student to answer the question. Asking the question before calling on a student ensures that the whole class pays attention to the question. If the teacher calls on one student, then asks the question, the other children are off the hook and feel free to pay less attention. Ms. Harkleroad frequently called on students before asking a question. Ms. Harkleroad agreed that her performance during this evaluation was "awful." Ms. Nave had come in to the classroom a day or two before and stayed for about 25 minutes. According to Ms. Harkleroad, "Everything went great. I thought that was my evaluation. A couple days later, here she comes in again. And immediately that's like, 'Okay, what are they doing? They couldn't find anything wrong that time, so they're coming in to find something wrong this time?'" She had a panic attack, and knew that the evaluation was "horrible." Again, Ms. Nave made no note of the dichotomy claimed by Ms. Harkleroad. Her observations were consistent over time. Ms. Nave saw no "great" lessons taught by Ms. Harkleroad. Nonetheless, Ms. Nave continued to encourage Ms. Harkleroad to improve her performance and genuinely believed that "she could get it together" with hard work and a sincere commitment to the recommendations she was receiving. On March 29, 2010, Ms. Nave completed a Prescription/Assistance form and reviewed it with Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Nave again stated the areas of deficient performance and listed sections of the IPPAS manual that addressed Ms. Harkleroad's deficiencies. Ms. Nave also obtained the assignment of Linda Bradley, a School Board employee who works as a mentor to beginning teachers, to visit Ms. Harkleroad's class every week to observe and assist her with her ongoing remediation strategies. The Prescription/Assistance form provided that Ms. Harkleroad would correct her deficiencies by the end of the school year, June 9, 2010. Ms. Harkleroad would then go through a 90-day performance probation period during the upcoming school year. Also on March 29, 2010, Dr. DeJarlais issued a memorandum to Ms. Harkleroad titled "Performance Probation" that read as follows: Pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes 1012.34, I am writing to inform you that you have performance deficiencies in the areas of Classroom Management and Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter. Based on the deficiencies, I am placing you on performance probation for 90 calendar days beginning on 8-23-2010. The 90 calendar days will end on November 23, 2010. By letter dated March 31, 2010, Superintendent of Schools Susan Moxley warned Ms. Harkleroad of the consequences of failure to correct her performance deficiencies: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 1012.33, I am writing to inform you that performance deficiencies have been identified by your principal. I understand that your principal has already met with you and made recommendations for improvement. Your principal will provide assistance to help you correct the performance deficiencies during the subsequent school year. Please be advised that your contract with the Lake County Schools District may be terminated without correction of these performance deficiencies. Pursuant to s. 1012.33, you may request to meet with the Superintendent or her designee for an informal review of the determination of unsatisfactory performance. You may also request to be considered for a transfer to another appropriate position under a different supervising administrator for the subsequent school year. Such transfer, however, does not reverse this year's identification of performance deficiencies. Both Ms. Nave and Dr. DeJarlais testified as to other problems with Ms. Harkleroad's performance in the classroom. The parents of two children in Ms. Harkleroad's class complained that their children were receiving too many disciplinary referrals to the office. Upon investigation, the administrators agreed with the parents and Ms. Harkleroad was counseled on the issue. As an alternative to referring minor disciplinary cases to the office, teachers at Fruitland Park are allowed to send students to another teacher's classroom for a time. Placed in a strange class with students who do not know him, the recalcitrant student usually will calm down and quietly do his work. Ms. Harkleroad's grade level peers complained to Ms. Nave that Ms. Harkleroad took excessive advantage of this option, sending children to their classrooms more frequently than should have been necessary. Ms. Nave's major problem with Ms. Harkleroad was her classroom management, her "with-itness," in Ms. Nave's terminology. Ms. Harkleroad too often appeared unaware of the things she was saying to the children, and unaware of what the children were doing in the classroom. She would not notice that children were up and walking around the classroom during lessons. Ms. Nave stated that during her observations, as many as 12 out of 22 children in Ms. Harkleroad's classroom would not be focused on the lesson, and Ms. Harkleroad did nothing to put them back on task. Dr. DeJarlais noted that some parents had complained about Ms. Harkleroad's odd behavior at a student assembly. Her speech was slurred, she called out the same student's name more than once, and she seemed disoriented. Dr. DeJarlais witnessed the assembly, and agreed with the parents that there was a problem. She spoke to Ms. Harkleroad about maintaining a sense of awareness on stage.2/ Dr. DeJarlais mentioned several other minor incidents. In the spring of 2010, Ms. Harkleroad did not fill out her report cards correctly. She once walked into the wrong grade level meeting and had to be directed to the right one. There was an incident in which she placed a child on the floor during a disciplinary timeout, and Dr. DeJarlais counseled her to use a desk. During a walkthrough, Dr. DeJarlais saw Ms. Harkleroad teaching the wrong subject. In each of these instances, Dr. DeJarlais counseled Ms. Harkleroad rather than giving her an official disciplinary or performance write-up. Ms. Harkleroad was convinced that Dr. DeJarlais was intentionally using her panic disorder to get rid of her. This was based partly on a conversation Ms. Harkleroad claimed to have overheard in which Dr. DeJarlais referred to Ms. Harkleroad as a "liability" because of her use of pain medications. Ms. Harkleroad believed that Dr. DeJarlais thought of her as a drug addict. She testified that Dr. DeJarlais made frequent comments that insinuated that she was an addict, asking whether she had a "problem" or needed "counseling." Ms. Harkleroad believed these insinuations were intended to add to the pressure she felt at school and therefore increase the anxiety and panic she would feel during her evaluations. Dr. DeJarlais denied ever calling Ms. Harkleroad an addict or even suggesting such a thing. She did recall that she and Ms. Nave had conversations with Ms. Harkleroad about her nodding off in front of the class, and that Ms. Harkleroad mentioned that she might need to adjust her medications. Dr. DeJarlais did not pry into the kinds of medications Ms. Harkleroad was taking. Ms. Harkleroad spoke to her several times in general terms about seeking help for medical conditions such as back pain. Dr. DeJarlais' only suggestion regarding counseling came when Ms. Harkleroad told her that she feared she was having a nervous breakdown. Dr. DeJarlais credibly denied doing anything to intimidate or humiliate Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Nave confirmed that she had seen Ms. Harkleroad appear to be sleeping or nodding off while standing in front of the class. At the time, Ms. Nave was unaware that Ms. Harkleroad took prescribed pain medications. Ms. Nave stated that Ms. Harkleroad was unaware that she was nodding off and denied it until Dr. DeJarlais confirmed that two other persons had reported seeing Ms. Harkleroad nod off. At that point, Ms. Harkleroad stated she would go see a physician. Ms. Harkleroad testified that her physician assured her that she could not have been falling asleep on her feet. The physician stated that one of her medications may have been causing mini seizures that resembled nodding off. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she passed this information on to both Dr. DeJarlais and Ms. Nave, though neither of the administrators recalled such a conversation. Given her feelings about Dr. DeJarlais, it was not surprising that Ms. Harkleroad chose the option of transferring to another school for the 2010-2011 school year. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she chose a transfer only after Dr. DeJarlais made it clear that she would prefer for Ms. Harkleroad to move on to another school. Dr. DeJarlais denied expressing such a preference. Ms. Nave recalled that she and Dr. DeJarlais met with Ms. Harkleroad to discuss her options for the 2010-2011 school year, which included transferring to another school or trying to work through the probationary process at Fruitland Park. Ms. Nave testified that when the discussion turned to the 90-day probationary period, Ms. Harkleroad mentioned that she might be having a nervous breakdown. This conversation occurred near the end of the school year, and was the first mention of any mental problems that Ms. Nave could recall. Ms. Harkleroad testified that the "nervous breakdown" conversation was more complicated than Dr. DeJarlais and Ms. Nave indicated. Ms. Harkleroad stated that she told the administrators that she was having multiple anxiety attacks, one after the other, and that she would have a nervous breakdown "if they kept on pushing me and pushing me." Though she had requested assignment to a middle school, Ms. Harkleroad was transferred to Beverly Shores Elementary School ("Beverly Shores") for the 2010-2011 school year and assigned to a third-grade classroom. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, the School Board notified Jeffrey Williams, the principal at Beverly Shores, that Ms. Harkleroad would be joining his staff in August 2010. The notice informed Mr. Williams that Ms. Harkleroad was on performance probation, and that her issues were classroom management and presentation of subject matter. Mr. Williams also received a phone call from Dr. DeJarlais to discuss the transfer. Dr. DeJarlais did not go into the details surrounding Ms. Harkleroad's probation aside from stating that she believed the move would be good for Ms. Harkleroad. Mr. Williams contacted Ms. Harkleroad and suggested they meet to discuss her transition to Beverly Shores. Ms. Harkleroad met with Mr. Williams at his office. Ms. Harkleroad told Mr. Williams that she had received a deficiency in her IPPAS evaluation and had requested a transfer, though Beverly Shores was not really where she wanted to be. Ms. Harkleroad mentioned that she had a back problem. Mr. Williams did not recall anything in the conversation concerning panic attacks, an anxiety disorder, or any other condition that would hinder Ms. Harkleroad's ability to pass an Appraisal I evaluation. Ms. Harkleroad denied telling Mr. Williams that she did not want to be at Beverly Shores, though she conceded that she told him she would rather be in a middle school because her back problems made it difficult to keep up with younger children. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she told Mr. Williams about her panic disorder, and further told him that she could not take medication for it because of the medication she took for her back pain. She requested that Mr. Williams use the PG- evaluation tool, or record her class, anything other than having people come into her classroom to judge her. She said that Mr. Williams replied that the rules required the use of the Appraisal I. Mr. Williams did not see Ms. Harkleroad again until school started in August 2010. He assigned assistant principal Tanya Rogers to be the supervising administrator handling all issues related to Ms. Harkleroad's job performance. During the first 90 days of the 2010-2011 school year, Mr. Williams limited his involvement to walkthroughs of Ms. Harkleroad's classroom. Ms. Rogers is an experienced assistant principal who has performed many teacher evaluations under the provisions of the IPPAS and the CBA. Ms. Rogers knew that Ms. Harkleroad was on performance probation, and saw to it that her Prescription/Assistance form from Fruitland Park was implemented at Beverly Shores. Linda Bradley was retained as Ms. Harkleroad's instructional coach, and Ms. Harkleroad was offered classes through the school's learning resource center. Ms. Rogers conducted frequent classroom walkthroughs and met with Ms. Harkleroad to assist her in preparing for her evaluation. Upon her arrival at Beverly Shores in August, Ms. Harkleroad discovered that her classroom was "filthy. There were mouse droppings all over. It took four of us six hours to get the room just clean enough that I'd bring my stuff in there. No air conditioning. . . It was almost six weeks before that air conditioning was fixed." Mr. Williams testified that the classroom was clean when Ms. Harkleroad arrived at the school in August 2010. Ms. Harkleroad estimated that the air conditioning was not repaired until September 27, and testified that the temperature reached 100 degrees in the afternoons. She had complained to Ms. Rogers but nothing was done until the date of the second observation by Ms. Rogers, when Ms. Harkleroad repeatedly noted how hot it was in the classroom and how difficult for the students to concentrate on their lessons. Ms. Harkleroad also testified that there was a "horrible" burning smell in the classroom. She complained to Mr. Williams about it. Eventually, on December 9, 2010, the Lake County Health Department came to the school to investigate the source of the smell. Ms. Harkleroad denied having called the Health Department. Ms. Rogers agreed that Ms. Harkleroad complained about the air conditioning in September. However, Ms. Rogers testified that she entered a work order and that the air conditioning was repaired on September 7. Ms. Rogers recalled no complaints about a smell in the classroom, though she did acknowledge that the Health Department was at the school on December 9, and that it found everything in Ms. Harkleroad's classroom to be in satisfactory condition. Mr. Williams recalled that Ms. Harkleroad complained about an odor in her classroom. Mr. Williams was convinced that Ms. Harkleroad had called the Health Department for the simple reason that the inspectors went straight to her classroom when they arrived at the school. However, Mr. Williams had no firm evidence that Ms. Harkleroad made the call and no way of knowing whether a concerned parent had made the call. In the absence of any stronger evidence, Ms. Harkleroad's denial is credited. There was no indication that either Ms. Rogers or Mr. Williams took retaliatory action against Ms. Harkleroad for her various complaints about conditions in her classroom, or that the performance appraisals Ms. Harkleroad received at Beverly Shores were based on anything other than her performance in the classroom. As part of her efforts to help Ms. Harkleroad prepare for her Appraisal I, Ms. Rogers conducted two classroom observations using the "Screening/Summative Observation Instrument" of the Florida Performance Measurement System ("FPMS"). This form was developed by the Florida Department of Education to enable an observer to calculate the frequency of effective and ineffective teaching techniques. In the first observation, conducted on September 7, 2010, Ms. Rogers found performance deficiencies in the areas of classroom management and presentation and knowledge of subject matter. In the second observation, conducted on September 27, 2010, Ms. Rogers found performance deficiencies in the same two areas, particularly in the area of managing student conduct. Ms. Rogers testified that she saw a great deal of choral reading and review of prior knowledge taking place in the classroom but observed no teaching of new content. She also noted that Ms. Harkleroad had a punitive approach to classroom management, and took a sarcastic tone with the children that tended to escalate discipline problems rather than calm them. Based on her observations, Ms. Rogers wrote a Prescription/Assistance form on September 29, 2010, and met with Ms. Harkleroad to go over the needed improvements. Ms. Rogers recommended weekly visits by Ms. Bradley, who would conduct FPMS observations in the problem areas and provide specific feedback to Ms. Harkleroad. Ms. Rogers also recommended specific classes offered at the School Board's staff development training facility: "Increasing Student Engagement," "Motivating Students," and "Classroom Management for Elementary Teachers." Ms. Rogers wrote that Ms. Harkleroad "will correct these behaviors by October 25, 2010, two weeks after staff development opportunity." Ms. Harkleroad testified that she attended one of the recommended classes, but found that it was unrelated to anything occurring in her classroom. She declined to attend the other classes. As the end Ms. Harkleroad's 90-day performance probation approached, Ms. Rogers notified Ms. Harkleroad of her intent to perform the Appraisal I. Ms. Harkleroad requested a conference with Ms. Rogers prior to the evaluation. At the conference, Ms. Harkleroad requested that Mr. Williams perform the Appraisal I evaluation. Ms. Rogers testified that Ms. Harkleroad told her that she found it difficult to respect women in positions of authority. Ms. Harkleroad believed that women should be at home taking care of their children, and that society's problems could be traced to women working outside the home. Ms. Rogers found this logic confusing because Ms. Harkleroad was herself a woman working outside the home. When Ms. Rogers pointed this out, Ms. Harkleroad responded that she did not have children. Ms. Rogers responded that her own children were grown and not living with her. Ms. Harkleroad asked Ms. Rogers whether her daughter stayed home with her children. Ms. Rogers replied that her daughter worked. Ms. Harkleroad said, "See, that's what I'm talking about. That's what's wrong with society." At the hearing, Ms. Harkleroad testified that her request had nothing to do with any general complaint about women in the workplace.3/ Her problem was with Ms. Rogers, whom she found to be unreasonably critical. Ms. Rogers conducted her first observation before Ms. Harkleroad even had a chance to learn the names of the children in her classroom, then told Ms. Harkleroad that she was an incompetent teacher, which caused Ms. Harkleroad to lose all respect for her. Thus, she told Ms. Rogers that she preferred to have Mr. Williams perform her Appraisal I. Ms. Rogers' version of the conference with Ms. Harkleroad is credited. Mr. Williams testified that Ms. Rogers came to him and told him that Ms. Harkleroad did not respect women in authority. Ms. Harkleroad did not think she could get a fair evaluation from Ms. Rogers and requested that Mr. Williams perform the appraisal. Without delving too deeply into the reasons for Ms. Harkleroad's request, Mr. Williams agreed to perform the Appraisal I. Ms. Rogers and Mr. Williams agreed that he declined to take the file that Ms. Rogers had developed on Ms. Harkleroad. He wanted a clean slate, and did not want to be influenced by the prior observations of Ms. Rogers. He wanted to evaluate what was happening in the classroom without preconceptions. Mr. Williams intended to evaluate Ms. Harkleroad as he would any other teacher. He entered Ms. Harkleroad's classroom several times during the week before the evaluation and performed a lengthy walkthrough to assess the overall learning environment. Mr. Williams conducted the Appraisal I on or about November 22, 2010.4/ He gave Ms. Harkleroad a score of 11. Mr. Williams found a deficiency in the section titled "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter." Ms. Harkleroad was rated unsatisfactory in the subsection titled, "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." This subsection contains seven sub-subsections, and Mr. Williams graded Ms. Harkleroad unsatisfactory in six of them: "Treats concepts/cause and effect/or states and applies rules;" "Teacher directed/guided practice is provided;" "Uses questioning techniques;" "Directs lesson;" "Provides periodic review;" and "Poses problems, dilemmas, and questions to promote critical thinking." Mr. Williams found these deficiencies because there was no direct instruction taking place in the classroom that would satisfy those areas of observation. Shortly after the evaluation, Ms. Harkleroad told him that she "just didn't have it today" and that she knew her performance had not been good. Ms. Harkleroad testified as to her problems with Mr. Williams' evaluation. These problems were related to her panic disorder and to an illness she claimed she had on the day of the evaluation. When Mr. Williams did his preparatory walkthrough of her classroom on the Friday before the evaluation, Ms. Harkleroad mistakenly believed that he was conducting the Appraisal I. As she had with Ms. Nave's earlier pre-evaluation classroom visit, Ms. Harkleroad claimed that the lesson went very well. She was jubilant that she had passed the evaluation. Mr. Williams noted no variance between what he observed on his walkthroughs of Ms. Harkleroad's classroom and what he observed during the November 22, 2010, Appraisal I. On the following Monday morning, Ms. Harkleroad was at an IEP meeting when she started pouring sweat and finding it difficult to breathe. The problem became worse as the day went by. She told Mr. Williams how sick she felt and that she might have to go home. Less than 30 minutes later, Mr. Williams appeared in her classroom to conduct the Appraisal I. Ms. Harkleroad stated that Mr. Williams' arrival "just blew it." She knew then that "all they wanted to do was fire me. They didn't care how they did it." After the evaluation, Ms. Harkleroad's husband picked her up from school because she was too ill to drive. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she was diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia. She did not return to school until the Monday after Thanksgiving, November 29, at which time Mr. Williams met with her to review her evaluation. Mr. Williams testified that Ms. Harkleroad said nothing to him about being sick and that he would have rescheduled the evaluation had he known. Before and during the evaluation, she showed no signs of illness. It was only after the evaluation, when they were discussing her poor performance, that Ms. Harkleroad appeared to become ill. Mr. Williams called the school nurse and Ms. Harkleroad's husband. Ms. Harkleroad later told him she had been hospitalized, but Mr. Williams had no firsthand knowledge of her medical treatment. On November 29, 2010, Mr. Williams conducted a post- evaluation conference with Ms. Harkleroad. He presented her options, which at that point were limited to resigning her position or facing formal termination procedures by the School Board. To Mr. Williams' surprise, Ms. Harkleroad chose termination. He was surprised because termination would likely end Ms. Harkleroad's teaching career. When Mr. Williams inquired further, Ms. Harkleroad told him that she chose termination in order to preserve her unemployment benefits. At the hearing, Ms. Harkleroad testified that she chose termination because resigning would have constituted an admission she had done something wrong. As to aspects of Ms. Harkleroad's performance outside the formal evaluation, Mr. Williams stated that there had been a couple of parent complaints. One child was moved out of her classroom due to what the parent termed "poor communication" with Ms. Harkleroad. Mr. Williams had to tell Ms. Harkleroad to stop asking the child why he had moved from her class. In a memorandum to Dr. Moxley dated December 9, 2010, and titled "Recommendation of Termination," Mr. Williams wrote as follows, in relevant part: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 1012.34, I am writing to inform you that Mrs. Deborah Harkleroad has completed his/her 90-calendar day performance probation and has failed to correct his/her performance deficiencies. I do not believe that Mrs. Harkleroad can correct said deficiencies and his/her employment should be terminated. I have complied with all applicable provisions of Florida Statutes 1012.34.... On the morning of December 13, 2010, Ms. Harkleroad wrote the following email to Dr. Moxley: Before a final decision is made on my employment status, I would like the opportunity to meet with you in order to discuss my current situation. It is my contention that I was performing my duties as a teacher in a manner that supported Literacy First guidelines on the date and time my evaluation was conducted. If I had been doing any type of activity other than something similar to what I was doing, I would not have been in compliance with established guidelines. Literacy First is a research-based, data-driven, comprehensive program designed to accelerate reading achievement. Beverly Shores implements the Literacy First program,5/ which includes explicit directives as to what should take place in whole group and small group instruction. Ms. Harkleroad did not raise Literacy First concerns with Mr. Williams at the time of the evaluation or even at the November 29 conference. After the fact, however, she contended that during the hour in which Mr. Williams conducted the evaluation, the Literacy First schedule called for her to perform whole group activities, which do not include "instruction." The children were building fluency by engaging in group reading practice. Had Mr. Williams stayed through the next hour, he would have seen explicit instruction when the class was broken into small groups. Ms. Harkleroad's argument that Literacy First mandated that she not teach the class is not credited. As early as her first observation on September 2, 2010, Ms. Rogers had noted that Ms. Harkleroad's whole group method appeared limited to "echo reading" rather than any of the other various strategies called for by the Literacy First program. Ms. Rogers did not formalize this observation in writing because echo reading is a legitimate Literacy First strategy, and she wanted to give Ms. Harkleroad the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Williams understood Ms. Harkleroad's class schedule, and as principal of Beverly Shores he understood the Literacy First guidelines. When he conducted his evaluation, he knew that Ms. Harkleroad's class was involved in whole group reading. It was in this context, with a full understanding of what should have been happening under Literacy First, that Mr. Williams concluded that no instruction took place during his observation. Ms. Harkleroad was not leading the class. Dr. Moxley did not meet with Ms. Harkleroad. By letter dated December 13, 2010, Dr. Moxley informed Ms. Harkleroad that, pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, Ms. Harkleroad had failed to correct performance deficiencies identified by her principal and Dr. Moxley intended to recommend to the School Board that Ms. Harkleroad's employment be terminated as of January 10, 2011. At the hearing, Ms. Harkleroad contended that she had placed the School Board on notice of her panic disorder before the 2009-2010 school year, and that she specifically requested that school administrators use the PG-13 evaluation process as an accommodation to her disability. Ms. Nave recalled Ms. Harkleroad requesting that she be allowed to use the PG-13 evaluation. Ms. Nave stated that Ms. Harkleroad gave no reason for the request, other than an assertion that she had earned the right not to go through the Appraisal I process. Ms. Harkleroad testified that she also pleaded with Mr. Williams to allow her to use the PG-13 evaluation because of her panic disorder. Mr. Williams flatly and credibly denied that any such conversation occurred.6 Dr. DeJarlais had no recollection of Ms. Harkleroad asking for the PG-13 evaluation. She testified that Ms. Harkleroad made no complaints about the Appraisal I procedure until after the evaluation had been completed. The testimony of the four administrators permits the inference that, far from being open with her superiors about her mental and physical problems, Ms. Harkleroad tended to downplay them because of the intense scrutiny she felt she was receiving regarding her job performance. On several occasions, Ms. DeJarlais and Ms. Nave made tentative inquiries into Ms. Harkleroad's emotional well being only to have Ms. Harkleroad sidestep their questions with vague assurances that she was seeing a doctor.7/ Out of respect for her privacy, the administrators left it at that and focused on her classroom performance. The first duty of the school administrators is to ensure that the children in their charge receive adequate instruction from a qualified, competent teacher. If Ms. Harkleroad's panic disorder required an accommodation, it was her responsibility to come forward and request it. The evidence established that she did not do so. It was not the duty of her superiors to tease the information out of her. As Mr. Williams pointed out, he is responsible for 55 teachers at Beverly Shores. He does not have the time to delve into all their personal lives and medical conditions, and tries to respect their privacy. Under all the circumstances, his focus was properly on the classroom. Aside from alleging a conspiracy of sorts to get rid of her,8/ Ms. Harkleroad could not explain why four experienced school administrators would lie about having no recollection of talking with her about her panic disorder, though they all testified that they knew about her back problems and had at least some knowledge that she took pain medications. Ms. Harkleroad testified that two previous principals at Fruitland Park, Joan Denson and Charles McDaniel, had been aware of and made accommodations for her panic disorder. She called neither of these former principals as witnesses to corroborate her version of events. The failure to corroborate her testimony was a theme of Ms. Harkleroad's overall presentation. She offered no documentary evidence regarding her medical condition. None of her physicians were called to testify. No fellow employees, friends or neighbors were called to testify that Ms. Harkleroad had discussed her panic disorder with them. Ms. Harkleroad testified that her students and their parents loved her as a teacher, but she called none of them to testify. Ms. Harkleroad's only supportive witness, teacher Norma Jean Miller, had not worked with Ms. Harkleroad for several years and only knew her as a literacy coach, not a classroom teacher. Ms. Miller knew of Ms. Harkleroad's back problems, but said nothing about a panic disorder. In the absence of corroborating evidence, it strains credulity beyond all reason to accept the sole word of Ms. Harkleroad that Dr. DeJarlais decided to get rid of her because of her drug use, realized that Ms. Harkleroad's panic disorder was a means to insure that she failed her evaluations, then apparently recruited the administration of another school to complete the process.9/ Because there is no evidence beyond Ms. Harkleroad's less than credible testimony to establish that the evaluation process was conducted in bad faith, it is found that the administrators at Fruitland Park and Beverly Shore judged Ms. Harkleroad on the merits of her teaching performance and graded that performance accordingly. Ms. Harkleroad complains that the criteria used in the evaluations were vague to the point of opacity, and did not take into account that different teachers may have different approaches to their work. She believes that some of the standard rules for classroom instruction are "ridiculous." When Ms. Rogers told her that she should make the children raise their hands and be called on before speaking in class, she airily dismissed the criticism as a "philosophical difference." Though the specific problems with Ms. Harkleroad's classroom performance were eminently correctible, her obstinacy and/or obtuseness in rejecting pointed advice from her superiors made it clear that she was highly unlikely ever to correct her performance deficiencies. The evidence established that the process followed by School Board personnel in evaluating Ms. Harkleroad's performance before and during her probationary period followed the letter of the IPPAS and the CBA, including the NEAT procedure set forth in Section 12 of Article XI of the CBA. The criteria and forms used to evaluate her performance were taken directly from the IPPAS Handbook. However, even though all procedures were correctly followed in the evaluation process, the School Board failed to establish grounds for terminating Ms. Harkleroad's employment pursuant to Section 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes, because it failed to offer evidence, apart from the anecdotal reports of the evaluators, that Ms. Harkleroad's teaching performance adversely affected the academic performance of the students assigned to her classroom.10/ The assessment procedure is to be "primarily based on the performance of students," and the absence of data such as FCAT scores or other objective comparators renders the School Board's case insufficient under section 1012.34, Florida Statutes.11/ The issue then becomes whether the School Board has established sufficient grounds for "just cause" termination pursuant to section 1012.33(1), Florida Statutes. On the sole statutory ground available under the evidence of this case, incompetency, the School Board has met its burden and justified its decision to terminate Respondent's employment. The evidence produced at the hearing demonstrated that the School Board had just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Harkleroad for incompetency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's professional service contract and dismissing Respondent on the ground of incompetency. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2011.
