Findings Of Fact The Petitioner made application to Respondent to obtain a license as a psychologist by exception pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of Chapter 81- 235, Laws of Florida, as amended by Section 37 of Chapter 82-179, Laws of Florida, and Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the grounds that his doctoral degree did not meet the educational requirements of Subsection (2) of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. It was stipulated by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent that Petitioner's doctoral degree did not meet the specific course requirements of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner received his B.A. degree from Rutger's University, a master's degree in counselor education from Florida State University, and a Ph.D. in marriage and family counseling from Florida State University. Petitioner's doctoral dissertation concerned itself with one of the key aspects of Adlerian psychology called "social interest." This dissertation was of such professional significance as to result in an appearance of Petitioner for the purpose of presenting the paper to the American Society of Adlerian Psychologists. Petitioner's course of study for his doctoral degree focused primarily on Adlerian psychology. The total course work completed by the Petitioner exceeded the minimum requirements for his Ph.D. In addition to his educational training, the Petitioner has done individual counseling and psychotherapy for approximately eleven years. Within the general field of psychology there are a host of different subdivisions. One of these subdivisions is counseling psychology. Within counseling psychology there are different theories or methods relative to dealing with individuals, and one of these methods is the Adlerian method. It was this method which was the focus of the Petitioner's dissertation for his doctoral degree. Petitioner sought his licensure by exception by contending that he obtained a doctoral degree from an approved university in a program that is primarily psychological in nature. The Petitioner's application for licensure was denied on the basis that his course of study was not primarily psychological in nature because the program did not include at least one course in biological bases of behavior or cognitive-affective bases of behavior as required by subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection (2) of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Three other individuals, Dr. Kerr, Dr. Simpson, and Dr. Shreenan, applied for and were granted licensure as psychologists during the same period of time in which Petitioner applied and was denied licensure. Petitioner's educational qualifications were equal to or exceeded those of Drs. Kerr, Simpson, and Shreenan. Dr. Kerr, Dr. Simpson, and Dr. Shreenan were certified by the Florida Association of Practicing Psychologists and gained licensure as psychologists pursuant to Chapter 81-235 as amended by Section 37 of Chapter 82- 179, Laws of Florida, which mandated licensure of persons so certified. Petitioner did not apply for certification by the Florida Association of Practicing Psychologists. The evidence did not establish that Petitioner's failure to apply for such certification was in any part due to actions or inactions on the part of the Respondent. The specific course requirements of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code, were not applicable to those individuals gaining licensure through certification by the Florida Association of Practicing Psychologists. Rule 21U-11.05 was promulgated by the Board of Psychological Examiners in order to establish an objective method for evaluating the educational programs of those applying for licensure. The rule establishes the minimum qualifications for a program of study to be considered primarily psychological in nature.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mallory E. Horne, Esquire Randall A. Holland, Esquire BORNE, RHODES, JAFFRY & Assistant Attorney General HORNE Administrative Law Suite 800, Barnett Bank Bldg. 1601-The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner had just or good cause to reject the Superintendent's recommendation that Respondent be re-appointed on probationary status to a one- semester teaching position as agriculture teacher.
Findings Of Fact Background Ms. Lee graduated from Florida State University in 1973 with a bachelors degree in art education. She received a masters degree in agriculture education from the University of Florida in 1984. She has served as an extension director for the Seminole Tribe and was a teacher in the Pahokee Junior Senior High School for about 14 years. She also held a position in the Ft. Pierce school system for a short time. She was initially employed by the Hamilton County School Board as a substitute teacher in March of 1998. Subsequently she was hired on an annual contract as the agriculture teacher at Hamilton County High School for the 1998- 1999 school year. Ms. Lee was issued a temporary-non-renewable certificate as a teacher, by the Florida Department of Education on October 17, 1998. This certificate covered the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2000. Pursuant to a favorable recommendation by Superintendent Parks, Ms. Lee was hired as the agriculture teacher for the school year 1999-2000. This contract required that she complete required college semester hours by September 1999, and receive a passing score on the Florida Teachers Certification Examination. This contract expired on May 31, 2000. Ms. Lee bought a used recreational vehicle with her own funds so that she could transport her students to agricultural events. Ms. Lee invested a lot of her own time and money into trying to enhance the agriculture program. Her husband helped her in this regard. During a time shortly before March 16, 2000, some of her students applied spray paint to Ms. Lee's recreational vehicle. Subsequently, when Ms. Lee learned that her vehicle had been vandalized, she used inappropriate language in front of an agriculture student, Ruben Perez, who was 18 years of age at the time. This occurred in her classroom and in the vicinity of her classroom. Ruben Perez surreptitiously tape-recorded this language. Ruben Perez stated that Ms. Lee had used inappropriate language prior to this incident which included vulgar language delivered in a loud voice. The Superintendent of Schools, Ms. Patricia Parks suspended Ms. Lee, without pay, on March 16, 2000. On March 24, 2000, Superintendent Parks, sent a letter to Ms. Lee advising that her suspension was reversed and that she would be reinstated with back pay and benefits. This action was taken subsequent to having been advised of the illegality of using the surreptitious tape-recording by Ms. Lee's attorney. The letter further advised Ms. Lee that there would be no record of the incident. Action by the Board At the end of the school year, Ms. Cheri Landry recommended to Superintendent Parks, in an undated letter, that Ms. Lee be given a contract for a one-semester position as "agriculture instructor/FFA advisor," for the period August 8, 2000 to December 20, 2000. This appointment was to be a probationary appointment. This recommendation noted that Ms. Landry had talked with Ms. Lee regarding, "areas in which she needs to improve which include "Climate/Learning Environment and Administration/Management." Superintendent Parks recommended to the Board that Ms. Lee be appointed to the position of agriculture teacher. A copy of a letter from Ms. Landry to Ms. Lee was appended to the recommendation. This letter summarized the areas in which Ms. Lee needed to improve. These documents represent the entirety of the information provided to the board with regard to Ms. Lee at the June 19, 2000, meeting. On June 19, 2000, the Board decided by a three-to-two vote, not to appoint Ms. Lee as recommended by Superintendent Parks. No record of the discussion of the reason for the Board's rejection was given other than Board member Ottis M. Cercy's statement that the firing was for "just cause." Ms. Lee was not given prior notice that the Board had under consideration the rejection of Superintendent Parks' recommendation. On June 19, 2000, Ms. Lee was in Texas with some of her agriculture students at a Future Farmers of America event. She was not under contract with the Board on that date and she was not paid by the Board for this activity. At the hearing, Board members Larry Carver, Martha Butler, and Ottis M. Cercy, stated that they had voted against the motion to enter into a new contract with Ms. Lee because they had received information, prior to the meeting of the Board, that Ms. Lee had cursed in the presence of students, and had permitted tobacco use and card playing in the classroom. Subsequently, Board Members Larry Carver, Martha Butler, and Otis M. Cercy sought additional information in an effort to ratify their action. Allegations of Misbehavior Mr. Wendell Hill, a retired teacher, had seen agriculture students smoking and dipping in an area where Ms. Lee could have seen them. Despite the fact that Hamilton County High School was officially a tobacco-free campus, students, as well as teachers, smoked on campus, and used smokeless tobacco. Mr. Hill also heard Ms. Lee speaking in a loud voice while in class. Jane Lowe, a history teacher and president of the teachers' union, observed that adults employed at Hamilton County High School occasionally smoked behind the boiler room. Evidence of smokeless tobacco use in Ms. Lee's room had been observed by Mr. Pinello, assistant principal of the high school. This observation occurred when he was the dean of students. Mr. Pinello did not relay this information to the principal. Mr. Pinello received some complaints with regard to the cleanliness of Ms. Lee's "environment" and classroom. He checked on this and relayed information regarding his findings to the principal. He received oral complaints that Ms. Lee had used inappropriate language but took no steps to confirm the reports. Allegations concerning Ms. Lee smoking, or permitting the use of tobacco products, were not presented to Ms. Landry prior to the June 19, 2000, Board meeting. Ms. Lee does not smoke nor did she knowingly permit students to use tobacco products. Moreover, she taught her students about the evils of tobacco use and encouraged them to refrain from tobacco use. The only witness who alleged vulgar conduct on the part of Ms. Lee during the incident precipitated by the vandalism of her recreational vehicle was Ruben Perez. He was also the only witness, with claimed personal knowledge, who alleged that Ms. Lee was vulgar at any time. The Board's minutes of May 22, 2000, revealed that Superintendent Parks had actively sought students as witnesses to the events described by Ruben Perez, but none could be found. No evidence was adduced demonstrating that the School Board or Hamilton County High School had a policy addressing vulgar language for either students or teachers. One student was suspended for a year for using vulgar language subsequent to June 19, 2000. The football coach has used vulgar language in front of school children but the Board has not fired him or taken any disciplinary action against him. Ms. Lee was first appointed to the position of agriculture instructor for the school year 1997-1998. Subsequently, for the school year 1998-1999, her appointment was subject to passing the Florida Teacher Certification Examination and passing additional course work. She held a temporary, non- renewable certificate from the Florida Department of Education for the period October 17, 1998 through June 30, 2000. She submitted an application for a new certificate dated June 12, 2000. At the time of the June 19, 2000, meeting of the Board, she had not completed the required semester hours of continuing education or taken the required certification examination. She successfully completed the requirements prior to the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year. The Board has often approved the appointment of teachers with temporary certificates. At the time of the hearing in this case, there were many teachers in the Hamilton County School system teaching under the authority of temporary certificates. Matters in Mitigation The agriculture operation at Hamilton County High School had in previous years, "gotten out of hand." The agriculture class had been a problem for 20 years. Ms. Lee improved the operation of the agriculture program by introducing new activities so that more students could be involved in the program. She promoted the Supervised Agricultural Experience Program and had winners in Future Farmers of America programs. She has involved the students in many projects including supporting the Farm Bureau in their annual dinner. The students provided a barbecue for the rodeo. She was heavily involved with her students and enhanced the agriculture program in many ways. Ms. Landry, the principal of Hamilton County High School, believes that Ms. Lee did a very good job and wants her to resume her position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order appointing Ms. Lee, on probationary status, to a one-semester teaching position as agriculture teacher dating back to the beginning of school year 2000-2001. The order should reflect that she is to be awarded full pay and benefits for the contract period for which she was recommended. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven C. Bullock, Esquire J. Rhett Bullard, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Bullock, P.A. 10 North Columbia Street Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Donald K. Rudser, Esquire Post Office Box 1011 Jasper, Florida 32052 Robert J. Sniffen, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Kolins, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Parks, Superintendent Hamilton County School Board Post Office Box 1059 Jasper, Florida 32052-1059 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Petitioner, Edward Hoffman, is entitled to licensure in Florida as a psychologist. At the final hearing, Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 was offered and admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact On August 1, 1983, the Petitioner Edward Hoffman applied for psychologist licensure by examination with the Respondent Department of Professional Regulation. Following a review of the Petitioner's doctoral transcript, supervision forms and other information submitted, the Board of Psychological Examiners determined that the doctoral program completed by the Petitioner was not comparable to those approved by the American Psychological Association as required by Section 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that inadequate documentation was submitted to verify completion of two (2) years of full-time experience in the field of psychology, only one of which may be predoctoral as required by Section 490.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes. On October 21, 1983, the Petitioner requested a hearing on the denial in order to dispute the Board's findings that he had failed to provide documentation of supervised internship and had attended a graduate program that did not meet the Board's rules. The Petitioner was provided notice of the formal hearing at the address he supplied in his initial request for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the application for examination as a psychologist of the Petitioner Edward Hoffman. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of December, 1983. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Hoffman, Ph.D. 11301 Northwest 15th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026 Randall A. Holland, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to Respondent for a psychology license by endorsement pursuant to Section 490.006, Florida Statutes (1981), and Rule 21U- 11.04, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the grounds that she does not hold a license from a state where the requirements for licensure are substantially equivalent to or more stringent than Florida's. Petitioner received a B.A. in psychology from Boston University, an Ed. M. in guidance and counseling from the University of Miami and, in 1975, an Ed.D. from Boston University. The doctoral program which Petitioner graduated from was not approved by the American Psychological Association (APA). Petitioner holds an active psychology license in New Jersey, issued in 1979, and an active psychology license in Massachusetts, issued in 1982. Petitioner completed her application for licensure by endorsement (Respondent's Exhibit 1) and answered the following question in the negative: Did the applicant's doctoral program require each student to demonstrate knowledge in the following substantive areas of psychology: biological bases of behavior (e.g. phys- iological psychology, comparative psy- chology, neuropsychology, psychopharmacology), cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g. learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), social bases of behavior (e.g. social psychology, cultural, ethnic, and group processes, sex roles, organizational systems theory), and individual behavior (e.g. personality theory, human development, individual differences, abnormal psychology, psy- chology of women, psychology of the handicapped). Petitioner's testimony at hearing and the statement of an official of Boston University (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) established that Petitioner's answer to the above question was correct -- that she was not required to demonstrate knowledge in the state areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric R. Jones, Esquire 307 E. New Haven Ave., #4 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Randall A. Holland, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Education, should have invalidated Petitioner's, Lori Monroe, Florida Teacher Certification Examination, for her alleged violation of a test- taking protocol.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is seeking to be certified as a teacher. She submitted appropriate application and sat for the March 4, 2006, Florida Teacher Certification Examination. Respondent is the state agency responsible for certifying teachers in the State of Florida and conducts the Florida Teacher Certification Examinations. The Florida Teacher Certification Examinations are given four times per year in various locations around the state. Because of the frequency and volume of Florida Teacher Certification Examinations, the application process and information regarding testing procedures are refined. The preliminary information provided examinees includes a statement of understanding, written in the first person, which makes specific reference to the fact that the examinee "must follow the instructions of the test administration personnel," and, "If I do anything prohibited by this paragraph, my examination results will be voided." In addition, examinees are provided an information sheet identifying "cheating behaviors." Included in the list of "cheating behaviors" is the following: "During the examination administration, continuing to work on the examination after the testing time had elapsed, and the directive to stop working has been given by a room proctor or supervisor." Included in the referenced refinements in testing procedures are instructions contained in a Test Administration Manual provided to test room supervisors and proctors that ensure the appropriate administration of the tests. The Test Administration Manual specifically delineates the procedure to be followed upon observation by a room supervisor or proctor when "an examinee continues to work on the test when time is called." In the instant case, the room supervisor and proctor, both of whom were experienced test administrators, followed the appropriate procedures. Both the room supervisor and proctor were within several feet of Petitioner who was sitting in the front-row seat of the classroom. Not only was Petitioner within easy view, but, certainly close enough to clearly hear the general instructions to stop. They observed Petitioner continue to enter answers on her answer sheet after examinees had been told to stop two times. It is unfortunate that the particular conduct of the Petitioner is characterized as "cheating," as the evidence, including the observations of the room supervisor and proctor, portrays Petitioner as being so focused on the examination that she did not hear the instruction to stop and, unfortunately, continued to answer questions after the test had concluded. Respondent advised Petitioner by letter dated March 20, 2006, that she had been assigned a score of "invalid" and that she had not fulfilled the requirement for a passing score on the Elementary Education K-6 examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order concluding that an irregularity had occurred and that "invalid" was the appropriate test score for the subject test. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 19th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew J. Carson, Esquire Department of Education Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0440 Charlie S. Martin, Esquire McLeod, McLeod & McLeod, P.A. 48 East Main Street Post Office Drawer 950 Apopka, Florida 32704-0950 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist on or about June 26, 1984 and Petitioner's application was considered by the Board of Psychological Examiners (Board). Petitioner's application for licensure was denied by the Board on the basis that Petitioner's doctoral program was not comparable to an American Psychological Association (APA) approved program in that the biological bases of behavior was not a requirement of Petitioner's doctoral program as required by Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code. The Board adopted Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code and essentially codified the criteria for APA approved program for the first time in this rule. The rule took effect an April 5, 1984. The pertinent part of the rule is provided below. In order to be certified by the Board as eligible for examination pursuant to Section 40.005(1), Florida Statutes, an applicant must: Complete the application form and remit the examination fee set by rule of the Board. Submit proof of the completion of a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard . of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association the Board will apply the following criteria: Education and training in psychology must have been received in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. The doctoral program must be publicly identified as a psychology program, and must specify in pertinent institutional catalogs and brochures its intent to educate and train psychologists. The psychology program must stand as a recognizable, coherent organizational entity within the institution. There must be a clear authority and pri mary responsibility for the academic core and speciality preparation, whether or not the program involves multiple administrative lines. The doctoral program must be an organized integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty. The program director must be a psy chologist. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a doctoral degree. The doctoral program must include super vised practicum and/or laboratory experiences appropriate to practice, teaching or research in psychology. The doctoral program shall require a minimum of: The equivalent of three full-time academic years of graduate study; Two academic years of the three shall be in full-time residence at the institution from which the doctoral degree is granted. The doctoral program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge and use of scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurements, and history and systems of psychology. Further, the program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge in the following subs tantive areas of psychology: Biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological, psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, psychopharmacology) Cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), Social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology, cultural-ethnic and group pro cesses, sex roles, organization and systems theory), and Individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differ ences, abnormal psychology, psychology of women, psychology of the handicapped). (Emphasis supplied.) Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code was adopted to implement Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983). The American Psychological Association Accreditation Handbook, Criteria For Accreditation of Doctoral Training Program and Internship in Professional Psychology (Handbook) adopted in January 1979 and amended in January 1980; sets out criteria that the doctoral programs must meet to be eligible for accreditation by APA and are listed below. Training in professional psychology is doctoral training offered in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Council of Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). The program, wherever it may be administratively housed, must be clearly and publicly identified and labeled as a professional psychology program. A recognizable, coherent organizational entity must be responsible for the program. The faculty of the program must have clear authority and primary responsibility for all aspects of the program (even if the program cuts across institutional administrative lines). The program must include an integrated, organized plan of study and must ensure a breadth of exposure to the field of psychology. The program must include supervised practicum, internship, field, or laboratory training appropriate to the practice of psychology. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty and a psychologist responsible for the program. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a degree. The institution must demonstrate its commitment to the program by appropriate financial support. APA recognizes that certain principles are basic to sound training in professional psychology and requires that these principles be adhered to in an APA approved doctoral program. These principles are found in the Handbook under Training Models and Curricula, and in pertinent part are provided below. It is the responsibility of the faculty to integrate practice with theory and research early in the program. Students should form an early identification with their profession. Faculty should be available to demonstrate and model the behaviors that students are expected to learn. A close working relationship between faculty and student is essential. The foundation of professional practice in psychology is the evolving body of knowledge in the discipline of psychology. While programs will vary in emphasis and in available resources, sound graduate education in general psychology is therefore essential in any program. The curriculum shall encompass the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full time resident graduate study. Instruction in scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurement, and history and systems of psychology must be included in every doctoral program in professional psychology. The program shall, further, require each student to demonstrate competence in each of the following substantive content areas: biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, sensation, psychopharmacology. cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology; cultural, ethnic, and group processes; sex roles; organizational and systems theory), and individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differences, abnormal psychology). (Emphasis supplied). The uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Perry was that competency in the area of biological bases of behavior is a fundamental requirement which a doctoral psychology program must require to properly train psychologists and the policy of the Board has been since its inception in 1981 that applicants for examination must have graduated from a program which required demonstration of competence in the foundation area of biological bases of behavior. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in the United States. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida. Dr. Perry testified that he had not reviewed all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida but that it was his belief that those programs were comparable to APA approved doctoral psychology programs. Based on Dr. Perry's service with the Board, he testified that the Board is not concerned with whether the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities of Florida are comparable with APA approved doctoral psychology programs when the applicant has graduated from one of the state universities of Florida.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), by using unauthorized methods of disciplining a student before allowing the student to visit the school nurse. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating certified teachers in the state. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate Number 416888. Respondent's Florida teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 2003. Respondent is employed as a Special Education Teacher at Moore Haven Junior High School (the "school") in the Glades County School District (the "District"). Respondent has a long-standing practice in his classroom of disciplining male students by making them do push-ups and hold books while their arms are extended in front of them. Both practices violate rules and policies of the school and the District. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge that discipline by push-ups and holding books violated the policies of the school and the District. The student handbook distributed to each teacher, including Respondent, prescribed the authorized methods of discipline. None of the authorized methods included pushups or holding books. Respondent submitted some evidence that administrators in the school deviated from officially stated policies and rules by condoning unauthorized methods of discipline such as pushups or holding books. However, the evidence submitted by Respondent was less than a preponderance of the evidence and was adequately refuted by evidence submitted by Petitioner. All of the students in Respondent's class are exceptional education students. Each student has an identified disability. Any method of discipline other than that authorized by applicable policies and rules must be clearly stated and authorized in each student's individual education plan ("IEP"). C.W. was an exceptional education student in Respondent's class on February 9, 2000. The IEP for C.W. did not authorize any alternative methods of discipline. During class on February 9, 2000, Respondent approached C.W. because C.W. had his head on his desk during class. Respondent instructed C.W. to do his assignment. C.W. complained that he felt sick and requested to see the school nurse. Respondent and C.W. exchanged brief repartees. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that during the exchange Respondent prevented C.W. from going to the nurse's office. Some witnesses testified that Respondent refused C.W.'s request to go to the nurse's office. Other witnesses in the classroom during the exchange testified that Respondent initially instructed C.W. to go to the nurse's office but that C.W. refused either to go to the nurse's office or to do his assignment. The testimony of all of those witnesses was credible. Because C.W. refused to do his assignment in class, Respondent instructed C.W. to stand at the back of the class with his arms extended in front of him. C.W. complied with Respondent's instruction. Respondent successfully completed the alternative method of discipline that required C.W. to stand at the back of the class. However, Respondent failed to effectuate other unauthorized methods of discipline that Respondent attempted. When Respondent placed books in C.W.'s arms, C.W. did not hold the books in his arms. Rather, C.W. dropped his arms, and the books fell to the floor. When Respondent instructed C.W. to do push-ups, C.W. refused Respondent's instruction. C.W. left Respondent's classroom under his own volition and went to the office of the school nurse. The evidence does not reveal the amount of time that transpired between Respondent's initial instruction for C.W. to stand at the back of the class and the time when C.W. left for the nurse's office. Therefore, there is no evidentiary basis to quantify the delay in medical attention. When C.W. arrived at the nurse's office, the school nurse determined that C.W. was feverish, suffered chills, and that his complexion was "splotchy." The nurse telephoned C.W.'s parents. The parents took C.W. home and subsequently to the hospital. The examining physician at the hospital diagnosed C.W. as suffering from mastoiditis. The physician admitted C.W. to the hospital for two days and successfully treated the medical condition. The medical condition represented an exigent threat of harm to C.W.'s physical safety within the meaning of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). As previously found, however, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect the student from a medical condition that was harmful to the student's physical safety. Conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent delayed C.W.'s attempt to see the school nurse or the length of any delay allegedly caused by Respondent. C.W. left Respondent's class under his own volition and went directly to the nurse's office. The conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing that any delay between Respondent's initial contact with the student and the student's departure to the school nurse was significant enough that Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to the student's physical safety. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to learning. The methods of discipline attempted by Respondent were harmful to C.W.'s ability to learn, violated C.W.'s IEP, and violated school policy. For the same reasons, Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Administrative staff at the school conducted a full investigation of the matter. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the District issued a written letter of reprimand to Respondent. The letter of reprimand issued by the District is disciplinary action by Respondent's employer. The judicial doctrine of double jeopardy does not preclude disciplinary action by Petitioner against Respondent's license. No evidence shows that Respondent has any prior disciplinary history by either Petitioner or the District. Petitioner seeks to have Respondent's teaching certificate suspended for 12 months. However, Petitioner's proposed penalty is based on the premise that Respondent committed all of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and suspending Respondent's teaching certificate in Florida for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Ron Weaver & Associates 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1518 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Educational Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl Zahner, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Moses N. Mwaura 214 Tenth Street Post Office Box 856 Moore Haven, Florida 33471
