The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges dated March 20, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Since 1988, Respondent Priscilla Stephens Kruize ("Kruize") has been employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board teaching various grade levels at Gulfstream. At all times during which Kruize has been so employed, teachers in the Miami-Dade County school system were evaluated annually pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"). TADS was approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract ("the contract") between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers. TADS purports to objectively measure 67 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. TADS includes in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school supervisory personnel. TADS observers are trained and certified. The observer records deficiencies noted during the observation period, if any. In addition, the observer provides a so-called "prescription," or plan, for performance improvement in each of the areas in which deficiencies are noted. A post- observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response. Under the School Board's contract with the UTD, the teacher is required to comply with the prescription plan, performing all activities specified in the prescription and meeting the deadlines set forth. Miami-Dade County's TADS assessment system was implemented to fulfill the legislative mandate of Section 231.29, Florida Statutes. The statute requires the superintendent of each of Florida's school districts to establish procedures for assessing, on an annual basis, the performance of all instructional personnel employed by the district. At all times material hereto, TADS was used to evaluate Kruize's performance. Miami-Dade County's TADS procedures include all of the statutorily required elements, and Kruize received the benefit of each of the statutory requirements, including notice in writing of each deficiency observed; assistance and recommendations designed to help correct those deficiencies; and a reasonable period of time in which to correct deficiencies. As a result of certain amendments to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, the School Board and UTD executed a Memorandum of Understanding on December 4, 1997, for the purpose of amending the TADS procedure to comply with new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a meeting known as a conference for the record ("CFR") initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. From the beginning of her employment at Gulfstream through and including the 1998-99 school year, Kruize's TADS evaluations were satisfactory. In the 1999-2000 school year, Kruize was assigned to second grade. On October 11, 1999, Kruize was formally observed by Assistant Principal Cheryl Oglesby ("Oglesby"). This observation, along with one conducted on January 14, 2000, was identified in the March 20, 2000, Notice of Specific Charges ("Notice"). A November 22, 1999, observation was also conducted, but not specified in the March 20 Notice. At the October 11, 1999, observation, Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning; knowledge of subject matter; classroom management; techniques of instruction; and teacher-student relationships. 1/ Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she did not have a lesson plan that included objectives, activities, homework, and a way of monitoring pupil progress. Additionally, she failed to follow the lesson plan she did have. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made a substantial factual error, incorrectly explaining the concept of "blends." She also failed to be organized in her presentation. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not use appropriate verbal or non- verbal techniques to redirect the large number of students who were off-task or behaving inappropriately. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her instruction was not appropriate to the needs and abilities of her students. She seemed unaware that 90 percent of the students were not following the lesson, the content of which was not age appropriate. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because she failed to encourage participation from students who were reluctant to participate; she was impatient with students who did not answer questions with the answer she wanted, and did nothing to deal with a student who was being rude to a classmate. A timely post-observation conference for the record ("CFR") was held on October 19, 1999. At that time, Kruize was advised that her performance was unacceptable. In accordance with Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and with the TADS procedures approved by the Department of Education and embraced within the School Board's contract with the UTD, Kruize was placed on a performance probation. Kruize was provided with assistance in the form of a written prescription 2/ to aid her in improving her unsatisfactory performance. The deadline for completing the prescriptive activities was November 17, 1999. The prescription contained, as it must, specific recommendations with respect to each area of unsatisfactory performance and identified individuals and written materials available to Kruize to help her to comply with the prescription plan. The assistance provided included a sample lesson plan format, the opportunity to consult with and/or observe a successful teacher, and the opportunity to consult with administrators and subject matter specialists for the purpose of obtaining help in addressing the cited weaknesses. The prescription also included directions to submit written summaries of her observations of the methods used by a successful teacher in encouraging students to improve their behavior; directions to read specific pages from the TADS Prescription Manual and to complete certain activities in that Manual; and to otherwise submit written work done in accordance with the prescription to administrators for review and feedback. Kruize was generally well liked by her colleagues, most, if not all, of whom stood ready to assist her. The TADS observation/prescription form provides space in which a teacher may respond to alleged deficiencies. Kruize made no written response on this prescription, nor on the ones which would follow. Kruize did observe the teacher designated to assist her in dealing with classroom discipline, but failed to perform any of the required reading and writing assignments prior to the November 17 deadline. In accordance with "standard operating procedure" the deadline was extended by one day, and Kruize again did not comply. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the School Board and the UTD dated September 26, 1997, it was necessary for Gulfstream's administration to conduct an additional two TADS observations after the compliance deadline but before the 90-day probation period ended. The required observations were conducted on November 22, 1999, and January 14, 2000. On November 22, 1999, a second CFR was held. At this time, Kruize was placed on prescription relative to professional responsibilities, due to her failure to comply with the deadline contained in the October prescription. In addition, Kruize was instructed to complete all prescriptive activities by January 22, 2000. Also on November 22, 1999, the first of the two required follow-up TADS observations was conducted by Assistant Principal Helene Chait ("Chait"). A new prescription was issued for deficiencies in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Kruize was rated deficient as to classroom management because she did not have a schedule for the children; she was unable to control inattentive children; and was otherwise unable to use instructional time for instruction. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not appropriately lead-in, sequence, and close her lessons, and otherwise failed to provide context for lessons, and because she ignored, and in one case shunted off to the back of the room, a child who was isolated from the classroom activities. Kruize was found defiencent in teacher-student relationships because she failed to address inappropriate behavior and failed to be cognizant of the individual needs of her students. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she failed to maintain a grade book which documented student performance in the form of two grades per week, the minimum required. Based upon the November 22, 1999, observation, a new prescription dated December 1, 1999, was issued directed to the specific deficiencies observed by Chait. The prescription included specific directions, such as observing a designated teacher and noting at least one method used by the teacher to adjust a lesson to the needs of students. Kruize was required to demonstrate that she understood what she had observed by writing a paragraph describing the method and submitting same to an assistant principal. Various other reading, writing, and in-service assignments were prescribed, all in accordance with the TADS prescription manual and all appropriate to help Kruize to improve her classroom performance. Kruize was given until January 4, 2000, to comply with the assignments contained in the prescription. Subsequently, the deadline for compliance was extended to January 5, 2000. Kruize did not complete any of the tasks and requirements set forth in the December 1, 1999, prescription. On January 7, 2000, a CFR was held at which time Kruize was informed that she had again failed to fulfill the prescription requirements. In accordance with procedure, Kruize was given an extension, until February 9, 2000, to comply with her professional responsibilities prescription, i.e. to complete all prescriptive activities assigned in the original, October 21, 1999, prescription. That deadline was subsequently extended to February 10, 2000, which deadline was characterized by Barr as an "absolute final deadline." Prior to setting the February 9 deadline, Barr inquired of Kruize how much additional time she would require to complete the prescription. Kruize told Barr the requirements were overwhelming and she couldn't do any of it. A third and final required TADS observation was conducted by Barr on January 14, 2000. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she was not in substantial compliance in following approved Miami-Dade County curriculum. For example, Kruize's lesson plans identified activities, not objectives as is required. As with her prior prescriptions, she refused to submit lesson plans for review each Friday, even though doing so would have assisted her in identifying deficiencies while there was time to correct them. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she failed to control off-task behaviors. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not use methods appropriate to the needs and abilities of the students. For example, it was evident that she continued not to grasp the concept of sequencing lessons. Instead, she moved from one activity to another without employing standard techniques for ensuring at the beginning of a lesson that students understood what was expected of them, and at the end of the lesson reviewing the material so that she could be certain as to whether students had in fact mastered it. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she failed to maintain folders for each child, as was required. An examination of her grade book or her students' "cubbies" failed to reveal the child's progress because it was impossible to match the worksheets in the cubbies with the grades in her gradebook. Kruize's failure to comply with prior prescription directives to provide to an assistant principal, for advance review, weekly written lesson plans which would include an assessment activity, made it impossible for Kruize to have the feedback necessary to correct her deficiency in this and other documented areas. As in previous prescriptions, Kruize was once again directed to develop and enforce a seating chart. She refused to take even this simple step to facilitate an organized classroom in which learning could take place. Once again, Kruize was offered help in the form of specific resources, recommendations, and prescribed activities, all from the TADS Prescription Manual, and all intended to assist her in improving her classroom performance. She was directed to read certain pages of the TADS manual; prepare and submit lesson plans which complied with approved formats and which would include assessment activities; outline introductions and closures for each lesson and attach same to her lesson plans; observe a designated teacher for purposes of recording proper methods of providing students with concrete examples and other methods of providing clarification to students. Kruize was required to create student work folders which a third party could correlate not only to the lessons taught, but also to the grades reflected in her gradebook. The time line in this prescription required that all prescribed activities be completed by February 9, 2000. That deadline was also extended by one day, to February 10, 2000. Kruize failed to comply with the third prescription in any way. In addition to the prescriptive activities specified in each of the above-described prescriptions, Kruize was afforded additional assistance by Barr in order to help her correct her deficiencies. For example, Kruize was afforded the opportunity to attend a best practices workshop for Miami-Dade County second grade teachers. The workshop was not limited to teachers who were on prescription. Instead, principals had discretion to pick which of their second grade teachers could attend. The purpose of the workshop was to enable teachers to share best practices and strategies in reading and planning. Barr selected Kruize to attend because Barr felt it would be a very positive form of assistance. The workshop sessions took place over a period of four days from October 1999 to January 2000. With respect to the workshop session held on January 22, 2000, Kruize went to Chait's office in the morning to advise that she had forgotten that she was to attend that day. Chait scrambled to cover Kruize's class so that she could attend. Other specialized assistance was provided by Gulfstream's reading specialist, Johnnie Farrington ("Farrington"). Farrington's job is to assist all of Gulfstream's teachers in implementing a district-wide comprehensive reading curriculum. She provides basic training to all teachers in the comprehensive reading program and is also responsible for knowing which teachers require what types of additional assistance. Kruize required more assistance than was needed by most other teachers. In addition, Kruize's students were not being provided at all times with each component of the comprehensive reading program. Kruize was the only teacher for whom Farrington performed a full two-hour reading block classroom demonstration. Demonstrations are performed only in classrooms where the teacher is having difficulty with one or more components of the reading program; Kruize was the only teacher having difficulty with each component. The assistance provided to Kruize through the various prescriptions and additional assistance offered were reasonable and appropriate to assist her to remedy her cited deficiencies. By February 10, 2000, the 90-day performance probation period was over. In accordance with state law and the UTD contract, a final "confirmatory" observation was required before action to terminate Kruize's contract could be commenced. The purpose of the final observation was to document whether the deficiencies had or had not been corrected. Kruize's confirmatory observation was conducted by Barr on February 11, 2000. The observation revealed that by this time Kruize had essentially given up on her teaching. At the commencement of the observation, very little of substance was occurring in the classroom. Eight of the 22 pupils were doing nothing. One of the non-participating students slept for 20 minutes until Kruize asked another student to wake him. Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in every TADS category. At some point following the completion of the TADS assessment process, Barr, acting on orders from a Ms. Waddell, the director of personnel for Region 6, offered Kruize a transfer to another school. Kruize refused the transfer. The transfer offer was unusual, and perhaps unique. Kruize claimed that Barr offered to wipe out all the prescriptions if Kruize accepted the transfer. Barr denies making such an offer. Neither side attempted to corroborate its version of the conversation in which the transfer was offered. On February 14, 2000, Barr timely forwarded to the Superintendent of Schools her recommendation that Kruize's employment be terminated. Kruize was provided a copy of Barr's recommendation. On February 28, 2000, the Superintendent timely notified Respondent that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated because she had failed to correct her performance deficiencies during her 90 calendar-day performance probationary period and because of gross insubordination. Throughout this long and unpleasant process, Kruize suspected that, as an African-American woman, she was being victimized by a racist white principal. At a minimum, Kruize felt she was being set-up by a principal who disliked her for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of her teaching. Kruize received satisfactory TADS assessments from 1988 when she was first employed at Gulfstream through Barr's first three years as Gulfstream's principal, 1996-97; 1997-98; and 1998-99. Although the TADS evaluators gave Kruize passing scores during those three evaluation periods, Barr and other Gulfstream administrators personally observed significant deficiencies in Kruize's classroom performance. Some parents asked that their children be assigned to other teachers. Two of the parents who complained about Kruize expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of African-American history she taught. 3/ Despite her concerns, Barr viewed a prescription as a drastic remedy which she declined to take before exhausting other avenues. Nevertheless, in 1999-2000, Barr placed three teachers besides Kruize on prescription. 4/ Relations between Barr and Kruize began to deteriorate at the end of the 1996-97 school year when Barr assigned Kruize to teach kindergarten in 1997-98. Barr hoped that Kruize's teaching would be more effective in a less demanding academic setting. Kruize vehemently protested the transfer in the form of letters and phone calls to Barr's supervisors. In the winter of 1999, Kruize and Barr again came into conflict when Barr questioned Kruize about a conversation she had with the PTA president regarding a contribution to an African heritage museum which Kruize operated on Gulfstream's campus. Barr and Kruize's perceptions of how the conversation was received by the PTA president are diametrically opposed. Kruize viewed Barr's inquiry as a racially motivated reprimand which she protested in at least two letters distributed to Barr's supervisors. Kruize also insists that Barr was rude and angry and told her to "stop making white people feel guilty." Kruize took umbrage that Barr would question her at all about what she regarded as a private conversation between herself and the PTA president. Barr denies being confrontational. She maintains that she was merely inquiring as to Kruize's version of what happened after the PTA president brought the conversation to Barr's attention. Kruize's evidence fails to demonstrate any impropriety in Barr's inquiry regarding the communication between Kruize and the PTA president. In the summer of 1999 Kruize vacationed in Ghana. Although she was aware that air service between Ghana and the United States was offered only twice weekly, she had booked her return flight so close to the start of the new school year that if the flight were cancelled--as it was--it would be impossible for her to be back in time for the opening of school. As a result of the flight cancellation, Kruize missed two teacher planning days. On those days, teacher training for a "Sing, Spell, Read and Write" program was conducted. Kruize had not prepared her classroom for the new children in advance of her departure for Ghana, and her students spent the first three days of the new school year without her. Barr docked Kruize's pay for the days she was absent. Kruize initiated a letter-writing campaign to protest that decision, and ultimately was reimbursed for that week's pay. Throughout the 90-day probation period, Kruize clung to the belief, as she described it, that Barr was out to get her. Kruize sought solace from family, as well as letters of support from friends, parents of former students, and colleagues in the system. None of the individuals who wrote letters or testified on her behalf had any personal knowledge of her teaching in 1999-2000, and none was qualified in the TADS methodology. 5/ Kruize's attitude toward the 90-day probation period was one of denial. She refused on several occasions to sign for receipt of various documents provided to her as part of the TADS process. She believed herself to be a good teacher and refused to take any of the prescribed corrective actions because she did not believe in the legitimacy of the TADS process, as applied to her by Barr. The School Board, through its duly-designated representatives at Gulfstream, appropriately applied the TADS procedures to Kruize, and has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Kruize's performance in the 1999-2000 school year was unsatisfactory. The School Board has failed to prove gross insubordination by a preponderance of the evidence. There is no evidence that racial animus or personal hostility on Barr's part played any role in the application of the TADS process to Kruize. The School Board has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Kruize failed to perform in a satisfactory manner and failed to correct her deficiencies by the close of her 90-day performance probationary period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment for unsatisfactory performance as set forth in Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges, and dismissing the charge of gross insubordination contained in Count II. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2000.
The Issue The central issue in case no. 88-2368 is whether Respondent should be suspended for thirty workdays due to misconduct in office. The central issue in case no. 88-3315 is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and incompetency.
Findings Of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: Marlene Rodriguez 16333 Wood Walk Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: With regard to case no. 88-2368, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to suspend Respondent for a thirty workday period for misconduct in office. With regard to case no. 88-3315, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to dismiss Respondent from employment for misconduct in office, incompetence, and gross insubordination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-2368, 88-3315 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the exception of George C. Clark, Mr. Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraphs 3-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not specific facts adduced by such testimony; some of the recitation being without basis. It is found that Respondent did not follow school policies regarding the discipline administered to students, that Respondent was aware of the correct procedures, and that Respondent continuously had trouble regarding classroom management. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is unnecessary to the conclusions reached in this cause. Paragraph 10 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but as a indication of the student-teacher relationship between Respondent and one of the students she taught. Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above as it relates to the hearsay contents of the letter. Other portions of the paragraph which conclude respondent knew discipline procedures but did not follow them, or knew notice policies but did not follow them are accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. Paragraphs 19,20,21, and 22 are accepted only to the extent addressed in findings of fact, paragraphs 7,8,9, and 10; otherwise, the proposed findings are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by admissible evidence. Paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 26, the first two sentences are accepted, the balance is rejected as hearsay or unsupported by the record in this cause. Paragraphs 27, 29, and 30 are accepted. (Petitioner did not submit a paragraph 28) In the future, proposed findings submitted which do not conform to the rules of the Florida Administrative Code will be summarily rejected. Petitioner is cautioned to review applicable rules, and to cite appropriately. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the clarification that Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 3, according to the evidence in this case, Repodent taught at Miami Gardens Elementary School (Leon was her principal there) and North Carol City Elementary School (Sawyer and Brown were her principals there). Other schools may have been assigned during her periods of "special assignment" but the record is insufficient to establish Respondent's performance while on such assignments. The record is insufficient to make the legal conclusion addressed in paragraph 4, consequently, it is rejected. The Board addressed a recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment; however, the record does not establish final action was taken. The facts alleged in paragraph 5 are too voluminous to address in one paragraph. Petitioner's continued use of a recitation of the testimony does not constitute findings of fact. Pertinent to this case are the following facts adduced from Petitioner's paragraph 5: that Respondent's overall performance was unacceptable, that Respondent failed to direct students who were off task, that Respondent made an excessive number of referrals for discipline, and that the atmosphere in Respondent's class was not conducive to learning. With the exception of the last sentence in paragraph 6, it is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See finding made regarding paragraph 5, case no. 88-2368. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the specific evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10-14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected with the exception of the last sentence; the time sequence referred to is not specified in the record. The record does establish, however, that Respondent did not make progress in correcting noted areas of deficiency. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have duplicate numbers for the following paragraphs: 15,16, and 17. The second set of these paragraphs are addressed below. Second paragraph 15 accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted but as an indication of the teacher-student relationship between Respondent and her student. Second paragraph 16 is accepted. Second paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraphs 19-22 are accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency and gross insubordination within the meaning of Subsection 231.36(4), Florida Statutes (1987) and that she be dismissed as an employee of the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. D0NALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4576 Petitioner: 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. 2-23. Covered in finding of fact 3. 24. Covered in finding of fact 4. 25. Covered in finding of fact 6. 26. Covered in finding of fact 7. 27. Covered in finding of fact 8. 28. Covered in finding of fact 9. 29. Covered in finding of fact 10. 30. Covered in finding of fact 11. 31. Covered in finding of fact 12. 32. Covered in finding of fact 13. 33. Covered in finding of fact 14. 34. Covered in finding of fact 15. 35. Covered in finding of fact 16. 36. Covered in finding of fact 17. 37. Covered in finding of fact 5. 38. Covered in finding of fact 18. 39. Covered in finding of fact 19. 40. Covered in finding of fact 20. 41. Covered in finding of fact 21. 42. Covered in finding of fact 22. 43. Covered in finding of fact 23. 44. Covered in finding of fact 24. 45. Covered in finding of fact 25. 46. Covered in finding of fact 26. 47. Covered in finding of fact 27. 48. Covered in finding of fact 28. 49. Covered in finding of fact 29. 50. Covered in finding of fact 30. 51. Covered in finding of fact 31. 52. Covered in finding of fact 32. 53. Covered in finding of fact 33. 54. Covered in finding of fact 34. 55. Covered in finding of fact 35. 56. Covered in finding of fact 36. 57. Covered in finding of fact 37. 58. Covered in finding of fact 38. 59. Covered in finding of fact 39. 60. Covered in finding of fact 40. 61. Covered in finding of fact 41. 62. Covered in finding of fact 42. 63. Covered in finding of fact 43. 64. Covered in finding of fact 44. 65. Covered in finding of fact 45. 66. Covered in finding of fact 46. 67. Covered in finding of fact 47. 68. Covered in finding of fact 48. 69. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in numerous findings of fact. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in numerous findings of fact. Covered in finding of fact 58. 74.-76. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The remainder has been rejected as being argument or irrelevant. Rejected as being argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 H. T. Smith, Esquire 1017 Northwest Ninth Court Miami, Florida 33136 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 125, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment as a teacher in the Orange County Public Schools based on charges of incompetency and gross insubordination, as set forth in the letter of L. Linton Deck, Jr., dated August 16, 1977.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Ethel R. Jones has been an elementary school teacher for twelve years. She taught a year in Georgia before obtaining her degree in commercial education at Bethune-Cookman College at Daytona Beach, Florida, in 1960. After teaching for one year at Hungerford Elementary School in Eatonville, Orange County, Florida, in 1963, she pursued further studies and received her certification in elementary education. After teaching several years in various Orange County and Highlands County public schools, she became employed at Ocoee Elementary School, Ocoee, Florida, in 1970 and taught there for seven years through the 1976-77 school year. She was on annual contract for the first four years and then was granted a continuing contract the following year. She taught a sixth-grade class her first year at Ocoee and then became a fourth-grade teacher until the 1976-77 year when she again instructed a class of approximately 31 sixth-grade pupils. (Testimony of Respondent) Respondent served under three principals at Ocoee from 1972 to 1977. School records reflect that from 1973 two of the principals each rendered two annual performance reports on respondent termed "Assessment of Instruction." During the first year of each of these periods, the principals noted that respondent needed improvement in maintaining good rapport with students, parents and co-workers. During the second year of each period, each principal rated the respondent satisfactory in all respects. The third principal, Maxie Cinnamon, assumed her duties at Ocoee during the 1976-77 school year. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) During the first month of the school year, Principal Cinnamon received approximately twelve-complaints about the respondent from parents of children in her class. Most of these complaints dealt with apprehensions concerning respondent's teaching ability based on her prior performance with fourth-grade students. As a result, Cinnamon visited the respondent's classroom on September 9, 1976, and observed class instruction for several hours. She noted a number of deficiencies in the quality of respondent's teaching. These included unfamiliarity with the definitions of common words, inadequate preparation and lesson plans, inappropriate grouping of students and poor communication with students. These observations were set forth in great detail in a written document, dated September 14, 1976, which was provided to respondent as recommendations for improvement. Additionally, an unofficial "Assessment of Instruction" was rendered by the principal that indicated need for improvement in various areas. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1, 7) During the course of the school year, the principal continued to receive complaints from parents and requests that their children be transferred from respondent's class. These complaints included reports that respondent was an inadequate teacher and that her disciplinary methods were inappropriate. In addition, no improvement in the previously-noted areas of deficiency had been observed by the principal. A number of conferences between Cinnamon and the respondent transpired in the fall of 1976 in an attempt to resolve these continuing problems, but achieved little or no success. Cinnamon directed a number of memorandums to respondent pointing out problem areas and suggesting remedial steps. She also suggested special courses and seminars that respondent could attend to improve her classroom instruction and to achieve a better relationship with parents and students. The respondent referred students to the principal's office on disciplinary matters some 35 times during the school year. For the most part, these referrals involved male students who were low achievers and either disrupted the classroom or failed to complete lesson assignments. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 8,9, 11-14) In December, 1976, Principal Cinnamon requested the Professional Practice Council of the State Department of Education to make a professional reviewer available to observe respondent's classroom performance and provide any necessary suggestions or recommendations for improvement. Thereafter, on January 31 and February 1, 1977, Mrs. Gretchen M. Olcott, a classroom teacher from Pinellas County, was sent to Ocoee Elementary School and conducted a "remediation review" concerning respondent. She rendered a report of her observations which was furnished to the respondent on March 11, 1977. The report contained many critical remarks concerning the quality of respondent's teaching ability and included detailed recommendations and suggestions for improvement. Most of Olcott's observations paralleled closely the previous deficiencies noted by Cinnamon and dealt primarily with inadequate lesson plans, lack of organization, poor student behavior patterns, lack of effective use of teaching materials and equipment, and the need to establish clear objectives and long-range goals. Also on March 11, Cinnamon wrote a letter to the respondent again listing her deficiencies and providing recommendations in that regard. The letter informed the respondent that unless she showed substantial improvement in all the noted areas by May 1, 1977, it would be necessary that she be recommended for dismissal to the Superintendent of the Orange County Schools. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Petitioner's Exhibits 3-5) During the ensuing weeks, Cinnamon was of the opinion that respondent had not materially improved her shortcomings despite efforts to assist her. At a conference in March, she told respondent that if she made no substantial improvement by May 23, she would recommend dismissal. She also requested that another reviewer be provided by the Professional Practices Council. Mr. Richard Svirskas visited respondent's classroom from May 11 to 13, 1977, for the Professional Practices Council. His report was similar to that of the previous reviewer and it concluded that respondent was far below average in ability in comparison with the majority of teachers known to the reviewer. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) As a result of the reviewers' reports and respondent's failure to show improvement, Principal Cinnamon, on June 7, 1977, recommended to the Superintendent of Orange County public schools that she be dismissed from employment. Based on this recommendation, the Superintendent, by letter of August 16, 1977, charged the respondent with 14 areas of incompetency and three instances of gross insubordination. On August 18, 1977, the Superintendent recommended to the School Board of Orange County that respondent be suspended without pay pending a hearing on the charges if requested. The school board approved the recommendation and suspended the respondent without pay. Respondent thereafter requested a hearing in the matter. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Case File) Respondent testified as a witness and maintained that she had received no support during the year from the school administration and that she could not please Principal Cinnamon in any respect. She feels that she was the victim of a conspiracy between Cinnamon and parents of her students, and that the independent reviewers sent to assess her classroom performance were "against" her because they had met with Cinnamon in private during their visit. The respondent further implied that Cinnamon had a dislike for her because she was the only black teacher in the intermediate level. No black students were enrolled at Ocoee Elementary School during the 1976-77 school year, but there were five black teachers including the respondent. The respondent further claimed that she had done her utmost to follow the recommendations for improvement made to her by Cinnamon and the reviewers, but that she received no assistance from the administration in this regard. Further, she claimed that she was unable to enroll in certain reading, student discipline, and teacher effectiveness courses for various reasons; however, she did take a mathematics course at her own expense and attended several seminars. Although Cinnamon had testified that she had instructed respondent not to set up learning centers in her classroom because of her lack of organizational ability, the respondent denied that she was given such instructions. She testified that she established this system of instruction because Cinnamon had recommended it to her. She also denied that she had placed children in the halls for disciplinary reasons, or deliberately omitted to teach reading and math on each school day, contrary to instructions, as claimed by Cinnamon. (Testimony of Jones, Cinnamon) Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it is found that during the 1976-77 school year: Respondent failed to make adequate plans and set definite objectives for her class- room instruction. Respondent failed to provide learning situations consistent with students' abilities. Respondent failed to exhibit adequate command of the subject matter that she taught. Respondent failed to communicate clearly and effectively with the students. Respondent failed to control the class so that a positive learning environment was created and maintained. Respondent failed to adequately pursue her professional growth and to seek ways of correcting identified deficiencies. It is further found that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent committed the following alleged acts of gross insubordination: Suspended children from class by placing them in the hall and otherwise leaving them unsupervised after being specifically told not to do so. Failed to teach reading and math on each school day as specifically instructed to do. Failed and refused to maintain and utilize a plan book as instructed by the principal. It is further found that insufficient evidence was presented to establish that the respondent was a victim of a conspiracy by the principal of Ocoee Elementary School or anyone else, or that any racial discrimination was practiced against her.
Recommendation That respondent Ethel R. Jones be dismissed from employment by the School Board of Orange County, Florida, for incompetency, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes. Done and Entered this 5th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. DuRocher, Esquire 326 North Fern Creek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Howard W. Cooper, Esquire 101 South Lake Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 John W. Bowen, Esquire 308 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 30, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Veita Jackson-Carter is the assistant principal at Eastside High School (Eastside) which is located in Gainesville, Florida, and is part of the Alachua County School District (school district). In the summer of 2002, Petitioner came to Eastside to talk to Ms. Jackson-Carter about employment there. At that initial meeting, Petitioner and Ms. Jackson-Carter discussed instructional positions at Eastside. While Petitioner gave a resume to Ms. Jackson-Carter, Ms. Jackson-Carter informed Petitioner that he needed to submit an employment application with the school district's personnel office. Ms. Jackson-Carter was very interested in hiring Petitioner. However, she explained to Petitioner that while the individual schools make recommendations regarding hiring, the school district actually hires applicants. Petitioner submitted a completed Application for Instructional Position on June 28, 2002, to the school district.2/ Because of her interest in hiring Petitioner, Ms. Jackson-Carter checked with someone in the school district's personnel office on the status of his application for an instructional position. She learned that there was a problem with his obtaining a teaching certificate. During this same period of time, Petitioner met with Marcia Shelton. At that time, Ms. Shelton was a certification specialist with the school district's department of personnel services. She worked with applicants in assisting them in determining eligibility for certification. However, neither she, nor anyone who works for the school district, has the authority to issue teaching certificates or statements of eligibility for teaching certificates as only the Florida Department of Education has the authority to do that. At the initial meeting between Petitioner and Ms. Shelton, Petitioner informed Ms. Shelton that a particular school was interested in hiring him for an instructional position. She began the process of assisting him to determine his eligibility for certification. Petitioner's application contained his educational achievements. He earned a bachelor's degree from Kentucky State University with a major in criminal justice and a minor in political science, and a master's degree with a major in human resource management and a minor in the area of public administration. Ms. Shelton asked for and received copies of Petitioner's academic transcripts. Ms. Shelton's review of the transcripts revealed that Petitioner had a cumulative undergraduate grade point average (GPA) of 2.322. She informed Petitioner that the minimum GPA required for issuance of an initial teaching certificate was 2.5 and that he would not be eligible for certification because the GPA for the courses needed for certification were not high enough. While Petitioner had the course work to meet specialization requirements for political science, the grades were not what was required. In an effort to help Petitioner, Ms. Shelton contacted Jean Morgan with the Bureau of Educator Certification of the Florida Department of Education (Department), to inquire as to whether public administration courses Petitioner had taken could be counted toward those required for certification in political science or social science. Petitioner's own exhibits establish that Ms. Shelton made numerous attempts to assist Petitioner by making repeated inquiries in August 2002 to Ms. Morgan and Ms. Morgan's supervisor, Kathy Hebda, in an effort to find a way for Petitioner to meet the Department's requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts included faxing course descriptions to the Department for evaluation in an effort to satisfy the Department's certification requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts, however, on Petitioner's behalf were unsuccessful. That is, she learned from both Ms. Morgan and Ms. Hebda that the Department would not accept the public administration courses to bring up Petitioner's GPA in political science. On August 5, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. She informed him of some career service positions at Eastside for which he could apply. Petitioner completed and filed a Career Service Application Form dated August 13, 2002, with Respondent. There is an inconsistency in Petitioner's answers to a question regarding criminal background on each application for employment with Respondent. Each application contains a question regarding whether the applicant had ever been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere to offenses listed in three categories. On the Application for Instructional Position, Petitioner checked "no" for all three categories: felony, first degree misdemeanor, and second degree misdemeanor involving a minor child or involving violence. He then answered "yes" to the question, "Have you ever been judicially determined to have committed abuse or neglect against a child." The application instructs the applicant that if any question was answered yes, to explain and attach all pertinent documents. Despite having answered yes to one question, Petitioner wrote "N/A" in the blank provided. However, on the Career Service Application Form, he answered "yes" to the category generally entitled "misdemeanor." The application instructs the applicant that if the answer to any of the criminal background questions was "yes," that the applicant must list charge(s) and disposition. In the blank provided to list charge(s) and disposition, Petitioner put "N/A" in the blank provided, despite having answered "yes" to the category entitled "misdemeanor." The application also instructs the applicant to attach all pertinent documents. On or about August 16, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. He inquired of Ms. Jackson-Carter when he was to report to work. Ms. Jackson- Carter inquired of Petitioner if the school district had offered him a position as she was not aware of any position having been offered to him. The last correspondence in the record from Ms. Shelton to the Department is dated August 29, 2002, in which she notes that the Bureau Chief of the Department's Bureau of Educator Certification was personally reviewing Petitioner's documents. She also noted that "he still has not applied to DOE." In Ms. Shelton's and Dr. Pratt's experience, it is unusual for the bureau chief to become personally involved in such a review. Ms. Shelton received a call from Ms. Hebda and the bureau chief during which Ms. Shelton learned that the bureau chief personally was going to accept the course work to enable Petitioner to meet specialization requirements for a temporary certificate in political science. Ms. Shelton did not have the authority to make that determination that was ultimately made by the bureau chief of the Bureau of Educator Certification. On August 23, 2002, the school district sent a letter to Petitioner informing him that his application for substitute teaching had been approved for the 2002-2003 school year. The letter informed him about a mandatory new employee orientation. It also specified that state law requires that all new employees be fingerprinted. The letter was signed by Josephine Brown, Coordinator, Personnel Services. Being a substitute teacher requires direct contact with students. The position of substitute teacher is not a permanent position with the school district. It is a conditional offer pending cleared fingerprint processing. Dr. Leila Pratt was Director of Personnel Services for the Alachua County School Board in August 2002. She was Ms. Shelton's and Ms. Brown's supervisor. She has since retired. On August 27, 2002, Dr. Pratt attended the criminal history review committee meeting during which Mr. Price was discussed. Of particular concern to Dr. Pratt were certain entries on Mr. Price's criminal history record received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation which Ms. Pratt believed reflected violent behavior. She was concerned that these offenses would make Petitioner ineligible for employment because of statutory and school district policy requirements. She was also concerned about the inconsistencies between the answers provided on the two applications. A Criminal Records form was completed regarding Petitioner as a result of the committee meeting which included the following notations: "criminal possession of handgun (87); possession of handgun (93); DUI & suspended license (2000); violation of KY charges (01). Falsification of application." The recommendation of the committee was termination. The school board issued a Separation of Service form to Petitioner dated and signed by Petitioner and Dr. Pratt August 28, 2002. The form identifies the reason for separation as "background check." Petitioner requested and was given the opportunity to explain his criminal history. On August 29, 2002, he went to Dr. Pratt's office to discuss his criminal background and to provide Dr. Pratt with pertinent documentation. However, the information which Petitioner provided to Dr. Pratt did not satisfy her concerns. On August 29, 2002, Dr. Pratt wrote a letter to Petitioner which stated as follows: Dear Mr. Price: In response to the three charges: criminal possession of a weapon, menacing and assault filed in August 1987, your documentation does not indicate your charges were dropped to a misdemeanor. It indicates that you pled guilty and was sentenced to thirty (30) days confinement. [sic] In response to your charge filed on April 6, 1989 for trespassing on property after a warning, you provided no official documentation from the court records. In response to the charge filed on November 12, 1993 for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, your documentation does not officially state that your charges were dismissed or that the charges were dropped. We are unable to determine what is meant by the statement, "lack of probable cause" on the paperwork you submitted. In response to the charge filed on April 20, 2000 for DUI and suspended license, your documentation stated the case was dismissed, but there was probable cause for the arrest and your case was remanded back to another court for the disposition. You submitted no documentation as to the final disposition. A restraining protection order was issued from 2000 to 2003 for domestic battery. No official court documentation regarding this charge has been provided. In addition to the information you submitted being incomplete, one of the documents you presented was not an official court document, which is what we requested, official court records. To provide further consideration to your request for employment, official court documents will need to be provided for all of the charges that have been filed. Until this information is received and reviewed, you are not eligible to work for the School Board of Alachua County. According to Ms. Price, official court documents are required of everyone under these circumstances. Even if the court documents had been official, Dr. Pratt's concerns would have remained because of the violent nature of some of the offenses in the documents and the statutory and school district policy requirements. Petitioner did not submit further documentation to Respondent clarifying his criminal history. Petitioner completed an Application for Florida Educator Certificate which was mailed to the Department on August 30, 2002. The Department issued an Official Statement of Status of Eligibility to Petitioner dated May 28, 2003, which explained to Petitioner what was required of him to get a temporary certificate and a professional certificate covering political science for grades 6 through 12. The Official Statement of Status of Eligibility also informs Petitioner that issuance of a certificate will be contingent upon a review of any criminal offense as a result of fingerprint processing. Dr. Pratt characterized Ms. Shelton's efforts on Petitioner's behalf as going "beyond the call of duty." She believes that her entire staff acted appropriately in dealing with Petitioner. Petitioner is an African-American male. At the time of the adverse employment action giving rise to this proceeding, Petitioner was 42 years old. Ms. Jackson-Carter and Dr. Pratt are African-American females. Ms. Shelton is a white female. Beyond Petitioner's allegation of discrimination, Petitioner presented no evidence that his race, sex, or age played any role in any action taken by Respondent regarding Petitioner's eligibility for teacher certification or its decision to terminate his probationary employment as a substitute teacher. The Department's ultimate acceptance of coursework and issuance of a Statement of Status of Eligibility some eight months after the adverse employment action taken by Respondent does not establish that Respondent engaged in discriminatory conduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2003.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's employment with the Petitioner should be terminated as alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed on July 31, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was employed as a math teacher at Mays Middle. As such, the Respondent was responsible for the day-to-day teaching assignment of the students enrolled in his class. The Respondent's duties also encompassed maintaining the appropriate records to be in order to fulfill his teaching responsibilities. These records included lesson plans, grade sheets, attendance records, class rosters, and time cards. The Petitioner is the agency charged by Florida law to administer the public schools within the Miami-Dade County School District. The Petitioner is authorized to hire and to, when appropriate, discipline teachers within the Miami-Dade County school system. Mays Middle is a public school within the Petitioner's district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Cooper was the principal at Mays Middle and was the supervisor responsible for personnel performance at the school. He has been a principal at several schools within the Miami-Dade school district and is a candidate for a doctorate degree in educational leadership. Mr. Cooper met the Respondent in approximately 1997 when he became the principal at Mays Middle. The Respondent was already employed at Mays Middle as a math teacher. All teachers at Mays Middle are required to attend faculty meetings, to turn-in class lists, to maintain teacher logs, to compile grades for students, to arrive at work on time prepared to teach, and to prepare appropriate lesson plans to be followed for the instruction of the students in the event the teacher is absent from school. All teachers at Mays Middle are provided with a faculty handbook that outlines their responsibilities. All teachers are required to follow the directives and instructions issued by the school principal regarding their responsibilities. All teachers who are cited for a performance deficiency are issued a prescription to address the identified problem. The prescription requires the teacher to perform specific acts to encourage remediation of the deficiency within a specified time. On November 17, 1998, Mr. Cooper issued a reprimand to the Respondent. This reprimand cited the Respondent's failure to notify or report to the worksite on November 6, 1998, and his failure to submit grades with gradesheets in a timely manner. In connection with this reprimand, Mr. Cooper conducted a conference for the record (CFR) with the Respondent in order to review the professional responsibilities of reporting to school timely or notifying the school and of submitting required paperwork in a timely manner. On January 13, 1999, the Assistant Principal, Mrs. Kaloostian, went to the Respondent's classroom to perform an observation. The class was to run from 9:30 a.m. until 11:15 a.m. Instead of beginning class promptly with the bell, the Respondent left the room after observing Mrs. Kaloostian in the rear of the classroom. Instead of returning to teach the class, the Respondent returned to the room at approximately 9:40 a.m., removed his bags and announced he was going home. Thereafter the school administrators attempted to locate a substitute for the Respondent's classes. The Respondent did not leave emergency lesson plans for the classes. Emergency lesson plans are required of all teachers so that a substitute teacher has material to review with the class. In this case, the Respondent did not leave plans for the day he left or the two days that followed. On January 22, 1999, Mr. Cooper conducted another CFR with the Respondent. This time the Respondent was placed on prescription for his conduct of January 13, 1999, and his failure to report to work the next two days. The doctor's note submitted by the Respondent to justify the absence indicated the Respondent was able to return to work on January 14, 1999. The prescription issued on January 22, 1999, outlined directives regarding lesson plans, attendance guidelines, the teacher code of ethics, and employee conduct requirements. The timelines for the Respondent's completion of these prescription directives were defined, ample, and unambiguous. When the Respondent did not timely complete the prescription, he was afforded additional time within which to complete the prescription directives. On February 17, 1999, the Respondent arrived at a faculty meeting 20 minutes late. The Respondent later stated that the tardiness was unintentional. On February 25, 1999, the Respondent was given a reprimand. Mr. Cooper conducted a CFR to review the attendance requirements and to address the Respondent's continuing failure to meet his professional responsibilities. All teachers employed by the Petitioner are evaluated pursuant to a Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS evaluators must be trained in the assessment tool and all teachers are advised of the categories covered by the instrument. Mrs. Kaloostian performed a formal TADS observation of the Respondent's class on February 18, 1999. This evaluation cited the Respondent with deficiencies in six categories covered by the assessment tool. The prescription issued with the TADS evaluation provided the Respondent with specific corrective measures to be completed by March 26, 1999. On March 1, 1999, the Respondent reported late to work. On March 23, 1999, the Respondent reported late to work and failed to attend a faculty meeting. On April 2, 1999, Mr. Cooper issued a reprimand to the Respondent for insubordination, failure to comply with attendance directives, and failure to comply with directives regarding tardiness or absences. On March 23, 1999, Mrs. Kaloostian performed a TADS observation in the Respondent's class. This assessment found the Respondent deficient in five categories of performance. The Respondent was provided a prescription to be completed by May 4, 1999. Under the terms of the teachers' contract, the successful completion of prescription requirements results in the remediation of the deficiency identified. Thus a teacher on prescription must complete the directives of the prescription in order to show remediation. The Petitioner makes personnel and other resources available to a teacher to assist the completion of the prescription. On April 12, 1999, the Respondent refused to sign a time card as directed by the Principal. The Respondent disagreed with the information on the card and refused to comply with Mr. Cooper's instruction to sign the card. Following this incident, the Respondent was given a written reprimand. On May 4, 1999, Mrs. Kaloostian wrote a memorandum to Mr. Cooper outlining the Respondent's failures regarding the prescription that was to be completed by that date. On May 5, 1999, Mr. Cooper gave the Respondent an additional 24 hours to complete the TADS prescription materials. On May 13, 1999, the Respondent asked to speak with Mrs. Kaloostian. At that time he gave her a letter describing his medical problems and represented that he would be seeking a medical leave effective the end of the school day. After completing papers regarding the leave, the Respondent refused to deliver his gradebook to Mrs. Kaloostian. He was asked several times to turn the gradebook in and each time he refused. The Respondent represented he would deliver it the next day at 9:00 a.m. He did not return the gradebook by 2:00 p.m., May 14, 1999. In addition to not delivering the gradebook, the lesson plans for Respondent's classes were not provided. As a result the math department chair had to provide lessons for the Respondent's classes. On or about June 14, 1999, the Respondent turned in his gradebook through another teacher. The gradebook was deficient in the information it was designed to log. On May 14, 1999, the Respondent did not attend a scheduled CFR. Accordingly, the record of the deficiencies cited by Mr. Cooper and the prescription for correction was provided to the Respondent by certified mail. Such prescription noted the Respondent's continuous failure to meet the prescription activities. During the 1998/1999 school year, the Respondent was absent from school 42.5 days. Nineteen of those days occurred prior to May 14, 1999. From February 6, 1998 through April 1, 1999, the Respondent received five prescriptions for Category VII deficiencies in professional responsibilities. On August 9, 1999, Dr. O'Donnell, director of the Office of Professional Standards, conducted a CFR with the Respondent. The conference addressed Respondent's performance assessments, attendance, medical fitness to perform his duties, noncompliance with directives, violations of the Code of Ethics, and future employment with the Petitioner. Following the CFR the Respondent was to return to Mays Middle to assume his responsibilities on August 26, 1999. In order to afford the Respondent with additional time to complete his prescriptions, the 90-calendar day probationary period was extended. Since he did not timely complete the prescription but effected medical leave commencing May 14, 1999, the time for formal observations was extended. All parties knew the observation would be conducted between September 13, 1999, and October 19, 1999. Moreover, the Respondent knew as a result of the CFR that he would be required to comply with his professional responsibilities. Nevertheless, on August 31, 1999, the Respondent failed to submit class counts; he did not submit emergency lesson plans on September 3, 1999; and he did not provide a class list on September 8, 1999. As a result, Mr. Cooper conducted a CFR on September 17, 1999. The Respondent was deemed insubordinate in all of the areas of professional responsibilities that had been previously delineated. He knew or should have known that the administration was not going to tolerate the failures to submit the required documents. Further, he knew or should have known that the untimely submission of the documents would also not be acceptable. If the Respondent had a medical condition that impaired his ability to timely complete and submit his records, he did not fully explain it to Mr. Cooper. On September 15, 1999, between 9:30 a.m. and 11:15 a.m., Mrs. Kaloostian observed the Respondent's class and performed a TADS assessment. The Respondent knew or should have known the assessment would be forthcoming. He had ample opportunity to be prepared for the assessment. He was not. The deficiencies cited in the September 15, 1999, evaluation required prescriptive remediations to be completed by October 1, 1999. Again the prescription identified persons available to the Respondent to assist in the prescription activities. The Respondent did not timely complete the prescription and was given 24 additional hours to complete the work. The Respondent failed to submit attendance cards on time on September 5, 1999, and September 7, 1999. The Respondent failed to timely submit Student Interim Progress Reports on October 6, 1999. On October 5, 1999, Mr. Cooper performed a TADS observation in the Respondent's class. Deficiencies were outlined and the Respondent was provided until October 19, 1999, to complete the prescriptive activities. On October 22, 1999, Mr. Cooper performed a TADS observation in the Respondent's class. This observation also established deficiencies in the Respondent's performance. Consequently, Mr. Cooper recommended that the Respondent's employment with the School District be terminated. On November 3, 1999, the superintendent of schools issued a letter advising the Respondent that the Petitioner would take action on November 17, 1999, regarding the recommendation to terminate the Respondent's employment contract. The Petitioner did approve the termination as outlined by the superintendent's letter. Thereafter, the Respondent timely challenged the action and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. At the hearing, the Respondent did not provide a credible explanation as to why he failed or refused to complete the prescriptions that were provided for him. He did not provide a credible response as to why he failed to be punctual with reports, attendance of meetings, or to comply with the directives provided by the principal and assistant principal. The directives and suggestions were reasonable in nature and should have afforded the Respondent with an ample opportunity to correct the performance deficiencies. At all times the Respondent was entitled to and had a representative from the union to advise him and to assist him for the CFRs conducted with school personnel. The Respondent was repeatedly offered additional time to complete prescriptive assignments. The Respondent was offered assistance and resources to complete the prescriptive assignments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the termination of the Respondent's employment with the Miami-Dade County School District be affirmed. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Room 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Charlie L. Bradley 130 Northwest 193rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33169 John Greco, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 North East Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Paul J. Schwiep, Esquire Aragon, Burlington, Weil & Crockett, P.A. Office in the Grove, Penthouse 2699 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133
Findings Of Fact Between December 6, 1994, and October 15, 1995, Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver and, subsequently, as a materials handling technician who delivered textbooks and supplies. His performance evaluations for that work were satisfactory or better. Prior to October 15, 1995, a teacher aide position became vacant at H. L. Johnson Elementary School, one of the public schools in Palm Beach County. This vacancy was in the special education classroom taught by Harriet Lurie. Although he had no experience or training for this type work, Respondent was hired to fill this vacancy. Respondent began this employment on October 15, 1995. The students in this classroom require constant supervision and assistance. Ms. Lurie, an experienced ESE teacher, the Respondent, and one other teacher aide were expected to provide the care and supervision required by these students. Respondent and Ms. Lurie were unable to develop an effective working relationship. The conflicts between Respondent and Ms. Lurie escalated, despite the efforts of the principal, Penelope Lopez, to encourage them to work together. December 15, 1995, was the last day of school prior the Christmas holidays. Following an incident between Respondent and Ms. Lurie earlier that day, Respondent appeared in Ms. Lopez's office and requested that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's class to any other available position. Ms. Lopez explained to Respondent that there were no other available positions. Because he was adamant about not returning to Ms. Lurie's classroom, Ms. Lopez agreed during that meeting to let Respondent perform custodial duties for the remainder of the day. January 2, 1996, was the first day of school following the Christmas holidays. On that date, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office and met with her prior to the beginning of school. Respondent again asked that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent became upset when Ms. Lopez denied his request for transfer and thereafter gave him a written reprimand. The reprimand, which accurately reflects efforts by Ms. Lopez to resolve the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: I have had conferences with you on December 6, 12 and 15, 1995 and numerous other impromptu meetings in which we discussed your concerns, my concerns and conflicts you were having with the teacher and the other teacher aide in the K-1B classroom (Ms. Lurie's classroom). The students in this classroom need consistent supervision in a warm nurturing environment. I am very unhappy with the conflict going on between you and the teacher and you and the other aide, at times in front of the students . . . There appears to be no effective working relationship between you and these associates . . . * * * 6. As a teacher-aide (sic), you report to the teacher in the K-1B class and work under her direct supervision. You are expected to follow directions and not argue with her . . . I have requested at each meeting with you to work cooperatively with the teacher and your coworker to solve problems or enhance the classroom setting and work as a team. I had to remove you from the classroom on December 15, 1995 due to a conflict with the teacher. Since you have not heeded my previous advice, I'm presenting you with this written reprimand as disciplinary action. I expect your behavior to improve immediately in all of these areas. Should you fail to improve your attendance and abide by established and published rules and duties of your position, you will subject yourself to further discipline. After Ms. Lopez gave Respondent the written reprimand, on January 2, 1996, she instructed him to return to his duties in Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent refused this instruction and left the school campus. Respondent did not return to the school campus on January 2, 1996. Respondent had seven days of sick leave available for his use as of January 2, 1996. Further, he qualified for additional unpaid leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (1993), 29 USC Sections 2611 et seq. Respondent did not requested nor had he been given any type of authorized leave for January 2, 1996. Respondent asserts that the School Board has no grounds to terminate his employment for his conduct on January 2, 1996, because he left school to go visit his doctor. The assertion that he left campus on January 2, 1996, because he was sick or in need of a doctor is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in this proceeding. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, it is found that after he left the school campus on January 2, 1996, Respondent spent the balance of the day attempting to contact district administrators to complain about the letter of reprimand he had received. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent did not seek medical attention on January 2, 1996. 1/ Respondent disobeyed Ms. Lopez's clear and direct instructions on January 2, 1996, and he willfully neglected his official responsibilities. This action was not justified by a need for medical attention. On January 3, 1996, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office at approximately 7:45 a.m. Ms. Lopez told Respondent that he was needed in Ms. Lurie's class and told him to report to duty. Respondent replied that he was going to the doctor and left school campus. When Ms. Lopez asked why he had not gone to the doctor when he was away from school on January 2, Respondent replied that he had been too busy attempting to do something about the reprimand he had been issued. Respondent was entitled to use sick leave to visit the doctor on January 3, 1996, and he was entitled to use paid sick leave, to the extent of its availability, between January 3, 1996, and the time of his tests on January 16, 1996. Good Samaritan Primary Care is a group of doctors who have associated for the practice of medicine. Leonard A. Sukienik, D.O., and Karen Kutikoff, M.D., are employed by that group practice. On January 3, 1996, Respondent was examined by Dr. Sukienik. Following that examination, Dr. Sukienik scheduled certain medical tests for Respondent to be conducted January 16, 1996. Dr. Sukienik wrote the following note dated January 3, 1996: To whom it may concern, Mr. Frank Sedor is a patient in my office and is noted to have stress related anxiety attacks with chest pain symptoms. This stress may be related to his job and Mr. Sedor may benefit from time off from work. Respondent returned to Johnson Elementary and met with Ms. Lopez at approximately 1:30 p.m. Respondent gave Ms. Lopez the note written by Dr. Sukienik. When Ms. Lopez asked Respondent to return to work, he informed her that he was not going to return to work until after the tests scheduled for January 16, 1996, had been completed. Respondent thereafter left the school campus. Respondent did not request any type of leave on January 3, 1996. Prior to her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez did not intend to recommend that Respondent's employment be terminated because she hoped that the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie could be resolved. After her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez sent a memorandum to Louis Haddad, Jr., the coordinator of Petitioner's Employee Relations office in which she requested that further disciplinary action be taken against Respondent for his refusal to report to his classroom as instructed on January 2, 1996, and for thereafter leaving the school site. The School Board, based on the superintendent's recommendation, voted to terminate Respondent's employment at its meeting of February 7, 1996, on grounds of insubordination and willful neglect of duty based on Respondent's conduct on January 2, 1996. 2/ The School Board is not seeking to terminate Respondent's employment for conduct after January 2, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. The final order should also terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher aide. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1996.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools District pursuant to a professional services contract. In the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Homestead Middle School. In the 2012-2013 school year, until she was suspended pending the outcome of this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at the Alternative Outreach Program, 5000 Role Models location.1/ At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Events Giving Rise to these Proceedings The 2011-2012 School Year Respondent began teaching eighth grade science at Homestead Middle School ("HMS") in August 2011. The 2011-2012 school year for students began on August 22, 2011. The workday hours for teachers at HMS for the 2011-2012 school year were from 7:25 a.m. to 2:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed for her teaching position, and again so informed during the first faculty meeting of the school year. Pursuant to the UTD contract, the teacher work hours per day in the Miami-Dade Public Schools consist of seven hours and 20 minutes, including a one-hour planning period. The UTD Contract provides that teachers may, with the approval of the work-site administrator (i.e., the principal) modify their workday schedule, such as adjusting the beginning time of the teacher's workday, provided that such modification does not interfere with the overall number of hours worked. This provision affords a principal the authority and discretion to modify a teacher's workday schedule. The student school day hours for HMS began at 7:35 a.m., when the first bell rang and students began entering their classrooms, and ended at 2:20 p.m. Students were to be in their classrooms by 7:40 a.m. for a homeroom period, immediately followed by the first instructional period consisting of a literacy block. The student school day schedule is set by the Miami-Dade County School Board and the school principal is not authorized to change it. Pursuant to HMS's established procedure, if a teacher was going to be absent, he or she must call the absence hotline at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the teacher workday. Shortly after the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began being tardy to work. HMS Principal Rachelle Surrancy or one of the HMS assistant principals would note Respondent's arrival time, either by being in the front of the school when she arrived2/ or by having to open the door to her classroom to let her homeroom class students in if she arrived after the late bell had rung. Surrancy verbally reminded Respondent of the school's starting time, then held an informal meeting with her on or about September 7, 2011, to remind her of the same. Respondent's young son suffers from a range of significant health conditions, including asthma, gastrointestinal reflux, apnea, pneumonia, lactose intolerance, allergic rhinitis, and eczema. He requires extensive care for these conditions, and Respondent was required to administer breathing treatments and other care on a daily basis. During flare-ups of her son's conditions, Respondent needed to take medical leave to provide that care. On or about September 20, 2011, Respondent submitted to Surrancy an Intermittent Leave Request Medical Certification form under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") (hereafter "FMLA Form")3/ requesting approval for Respondent to periodically take leave due to the intermittent illness of her young son. The FMLA form was completed and signed by Respondent's son's physician. Based on the child's medical history, the physician estimated that Respondent would need to take FMLA leave every two to three months, for a period lasting two to three days. Notwithstanding Surrancy's admonitions, Respondent continued to be tardy to work. During the first 25 days of the school year, Respondent was tardy 16 of those days. Most of the tardies entailed an arrival time of between two and five minutes late, but some entailed arrival times as much as 25 to 35 minutes late. When Respondent arrived after 7:40 a.m. (15 minutes late), her colleagues in the science department were placed in the position of having to cover her class until she arrived. As a result of Respondent's continued tardiness, on September 28, 2011, Surrancy issued a Punctuality to Work Directive ("Directive") to Respondent regarding her punctuality and attendance.4/ The Directive reminded Respondent that punctuality and attendance were essential components of her teaching position, and that as a faculty member, she served as a role model to other employees and student. Respondent was apprised that she was to arrive at work on time and sign in daily by 7:25 a.m. If she was going to be tardy, she was to communicate that to an assistant principal or to Surrancy. Surrancy explained that compliance with these directives was necessary to prevent adverse impact to the students and their academic progress, to ensure continuity of the educational program, and to maintain effective worksite operations. The memo advised Respondent that she could obtain assistance to facilitate her punctuality. Respondent was notified that noncompliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination. Respondent told Surrancy that the reason she was tardy was that she had to take her son to his daycare center. The daycare center did not open until 7:00 a.m., making it difficult for her to arrive at HMS by 7:25 a.m. due to the commute in morning traffic. On October 5, 2011, Surrancy evaluated Respondent's instructional performance for the 2011-2012 school year pursuant to the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System ("IPEGS"), the system used in the Miami-Dade County Public School District to evaluate instructional personnel. Surrancy rated Respondent as "effective" for each IPEGS standard other than Performance Standard ("PS") 7, "Professionalism."5/ For that standard, she rated Respondent's performance as "unsatisfactory" on the basis that due to her tardies, Respondent violated the School Board's Code of Ethics and Standards of Ethical Conduct policies.6/ After the September 28 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy, so on October 10, 2011, Surrancy again met with her. Respondent explained that each day, her son required a breathing treatment regimen that she had to administer and that she had to take her son to daycare. Respondent told Surrancy that she planned to enlist the assistance of a friend to take her son to daycare so that may assist her to arrive on time.7/ Surrancy offered to adjust Respondent's workday schedule to allow her to arrive five minutes later to accommodate her travel time from her son's daycare to HMS, contingent on Respondent arriving at work by 7:30 a.m. However, Respondent continued to be tardy, at times arriving later than 7:30 a.m. Surrancy held a follow-up meeting with Respondent on October 25, 2011, at which she notified Respondent that the adjusted workday schedule no longer was in effect and that she was again required to arrive at 7:25 a.m.8/ In the meantime, Respondent sought to transfer to a school having a workday schedule with which she could more easily comply, given her son's daycare start time and her travel time. She was offered, but declined, a position at Redland Middle School, which entailed a teaching assignment that was out of her field of certification. Respondent declined the position because it did not meet the condition of her loan forgiveness program that the assignment be in a critical subject area——such as science and math——and because she did not believe she would be as proficient a teacher in teaching out of her subject area. Following the October 25 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy. Several of these tardies necessitated coverage for her homeroom class. On December 14, 2011, Surrancy held a Conference-for- the-Record ("CFR") with Respondent to address her continued tardiness. By that time, Respondent had been tardy 45 days since the beginning of the school year, and several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class by her colleagues. Surrancy informed Respondent that her tardies had adversely affected the educational program and services provided to students. Respondent was again directed to be punctual and in regular attendance, to communicate any intent to be tardy before 7:00 a.m. by calling the assistant principals or her, and to provide physician documentation and/or recertification of her FMLA form as needed if she was going to use FMLA leave to cover her tardies. Respondent was provided copies of Petitioner's policies on Standards of Ethical Conduct, Code of Ethics, and Leaves of Absence; Department of Education rules 6B-1.001 and 6B- 1.006; another copy of the FMLA for recertification by her physician; and other documents to inform and assist Respondent in addressing her tardiness problem. Respondent was informed that noncompliance with the directives would constitute insubordination and compel district disciplinary action. Respondent continued to be tardy. Again, several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class. On February 13, 2012, Surrancy conducted another CFR with Respondent. As of that date, Respondent had been tardy 69 days since the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Surrancy issued Respondent the same directives previously given and again furnished Respondent copies of pertinent School Board policies, applicable Department of Education rules, and other informational documents. Surrancy informed Respondent that failure to comply with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and necessitate further disciplinary action. Respondent explained that her tardiness was due to a variety of factors, including having to perform breathing and other medical treatments on her son and taking him to daycare. She expressed concern at having to call in by 7:00 a.m. if she was going to be tardy because, for unforeseen reasons such as her son's daycare being late in opening, she may not know whether she was going to be tardy until after 7:00 a.m. Surrancy informed Respondent that under any circumstances, calling in did not excuse tardiness. Respondent requested that Surrancy assign her homeroom to another teacher and allow her to report at 7:45 a.m., when her science classes commenced. Surrancy refused. As a result of Respondent's continued tardies, Surrancy determined that her conduct constituted insubordination and noncompliance with applicable School Board policies. Surrancy issued a written Reprimand to Respondent on March 5, 2012. The Reprimand directed Respondent to adhere to school board policies, be punctual, and call Surrancy or an assistant principal before 7:00 a.m. if she were going to be tardy. Respondent nonetheless continued to be tardy, necessitating another CFR, which was held on March 29, 2012. By this time, Respondent had been tardy 86 days and absent 8.5 days in the 2011-2012 school year. During the CFR, Respondent provided two FMLA leave request forms completed by her son's treating physicians certifying the frequency and duration of her son's flare-ups that necessitated leave. One of these, dated March 6, 2012, stated that flare-ups occurred at a frequency of every one to two months for a duration of two to three days, while the other, dated February 20, 2012, stated that the flare-ups occurred approximately once a month and did not specify a duration. Under any circumstances, Respondent was tardy more frequently than the number of days of leave documented as necessary by either of these FMLA forms. Respondent again was given directives, which included those previously provided regarding punctuality and attendance, calling in by 7:00 a.m. if tardiness was anticipated, physician documentation for leave requests, performance of her teaching duties, comporting herself in a manner that reflected credit on herself and Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and adherence to School Board policies and applicable Department of Education rules. Respondent was again provided copies of the policies, rules, and other documents previously given to her. Respondent was offered the option of resigning her position but declined. Surrancy recommended that Respondent be suspended from her teaching position. However, Respondent was not suspended during the 2011-2012 school year.9/ Although Respondent's tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year required coverage of her homeroom class by colleagues on several occasions, she did not miss any classroom instructional time.10/ 2012-2013 School Year For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent was hired as a math and science teacher in the Educational Alternative Outreach Program's ("EAO") credit recovery program. She was assigned to the EAO's 5000 Role Models location. In this assignment, Respondent taught between 12 and 15 students in grades six through eight. The 5000 Role Models facility was located between 35 and 40 miles from Respondent's home. She had a commute of between one hour ten minutes and two hours one way from her home to 5000 Role Models. The teacher workday hours for this location were 8:20 a.m. to 3:40 p.m. Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed by EAO Principal Claire Warren, and by letter from Warren regarding her projected teaching assignment for the 2012-2013 school year. Warren credibly testified that at the time she was interviewed, Respondent did not express any concerns regarding this schedule. The student school day at 5000 Role Models started at 9:00 a.m. Shortly after the school year commenced, Respondent began being tardy. During the first week of the students' school year, Respondent was tardy twice, approximately 20 minutes each time. On August 31, 2012, Warren issued Respondent a written memorandum reminding her of the directives that were issued the previous school year and directing her to be punctual and in regular attendance; call before 8:00 a.m. to notify either Warren or the assistant principal if she was going to be absent or tardy; provide physician documentation for absences and tardies due to illness; timely submit updated FMLA forms if anticipated illness or tardies covered under the FMLA are anticipated; adhere to all School Board policies; and perform her job responsibilities. Respondent was placed on notice that noncompliance with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate notification of the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. As of October 1, 2012, Respondent had been tardy eight times11/ and absent three days.12/ On some of the days she was tardy, Respondent did not call to notify the administration, as she had been directed to do; on other days, she sent text messages but did not call. Warren conducted another conference with Respondent on October 1, 2012. She issued another memorandum documenting Respondent's tardies since the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, reiterating the directives previously issued on August 31, and notifying Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination. Warren also provided a letter to Respondent regarding FMLA coverage of her tardies and absences. The letter informed Respondent that only absences, i.e., time away from the worksite, and not tardies were covered by the FMLA, and that it was her responsibility to notify the school if she were going to be absent pursuant to an FMLA-certified illness event. Attached to the letter was an FMLA Form to enable Respondent to update her FMLA-covered illness certification as necessary. Respondent's tardies continued. She was tardy on October 2, 5, 8, and 9——on some of these days as much as 45 to 70 minutes late. On the days when she was tardy by 40 or more minutes, she missed classroom instructional time and her students had to be placed in another teacher's classroom. On October 10, 2012, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay,13/ for gross insubordination and for violating School Board policies regarding the Code of Ethics (policy 3210), Standards of Ethical Conduct (policy 3210.01), and Leaves of Absence (policy 3430), and rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009.14/ Respondent served her suspension and returned to work on November 26, 2012. On that day, she was 11 minutes tardy; the following day, she was 40 minutes tardy. On November 29, 2012, Warren issued another memorandum to Respondent reiterating the directives previously given on August 31 and October 1. Respondent was informed that her failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate referral to the Office of Professional Standards for further discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. In December 2012 and January 2013, Respondent was tardy 13 days, two of which required coverage of her class. Respondent did not call in to the school to notify them of her anticipated tardiness but she did notify the school by text message on some of these occasions. On February 1, 2013, Respondent was notified of a CFR scheduled for February 5, 2013. On February 4, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she would not be at school that day or the following day. On February 6, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she was taking a leave of absence "for at least the next few weeks." She also informed Warren that her absences the previous two days had been due to her own illness. Respondent did not submit a leave request form to Warren prior to taking sick leave. Respondent did submit a Leave of Absence Medical Documentation Form to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Retirement/Leave/Unemployment Compensation ("Leave Office") on February 5, 2013, containing her physician's certification that she was ill and recommending a leave of absence from February 4, 2013, to March 1, 2013. Because she was requesting approval of leave for less than 30 days' duration, under the UTD Contract, Respondent should have filed her leave request with Warren rather than with the Leave Office. UTD Contract Article XIV, section 2, paragraph A., governing notification in the event of teacher absence, states in pertinent part: When a teacher, for whom an emergency temporary instructor is employed, will be absent from work, due to illness or injury or due to personal reasons, he/she shall notify the supervising administrator (or designee), as soon as possible, but no later than one hour before the start of his/her scheduled workday, in order that an emergency temporary instructor can be employed or other arrangements made. If said absence/leave is for a specified period of time, no further notice is necessary. In the event of a change in this specified period of absence, the employee will proceed, pursuant to the stipulations herein. Where an absent teacher does not notify his/her supervising administrator, as stipulated herein, and where there are not extenuating circumstances, as determined by the supervising administrator, such teacher will have the option to utilize personal leave or leave without pay. However, such determination by the supervising administrator shall not be made arbitrarily. UTD Contract, art. XIV, § 2.A. (emphasis added). Article XIV, section 10, governs sick leave without pay for illness. Paragraph C. of that section states: "[e]mployees whose illness requires an absence of over 30 days must file an application for extended sick leave indicating the anticipated length of such absence and supported by a statement from competent medical authority." This leave request would be filed with the Leave Office. However, because Respondent did not request sick leave for a period exceeding 30 days, this provision was not applicable to her leave request. Notwithstanding, Respondent's leave request was reviewed by a medical consultant for Miami-Dade County Public Schools and ultimately was denied. Apparently, some time elapsed before the Leave Office forwarded Respondent's leave request and denial decision to Warren. Warren testified: "I didn't get the request until much afterwards, you know, after she had been out several days " Even after Warren received Respondent's leave request form and denial from the Leave Office, more time passed before she notified Respondent. It was not until March 1, 2013, that Warren sent Respondent a letter informing her that her leave request had been denied and that her absences for the entire month of February were unauthorized, thus warranting her dismissal on the basis of job abandonment. At approximately the same time Warren notified Respondent that her leave request was denied, Warren also notified Respondent, by separate email, that she had incorrectly submitted her leave request to the Leave Office, instead of submitting it to her (Warren). On the same day that Warren notified Respondent that her leave request had been denied, Respondent submitted another leave request form and a medical documentation form to Warren, retroactively requesting approval of her sick leave taken between February 4 to March 18, 2013, due to her own illness. Warren denied the request that same day, citing the medical consultant's determination as the basis for the denial. Warren's letter did not cite an independent basis for the denial. Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the medical consultant's determination to deny the request. Respondent returned to work on March 4, 2013. She was tardy that day and the following day. On March 6, 2013, a CFR was held. The CFR originally had been scheduled for February 5, 2013, but when Respondent took leave, it was rescheduled. At the meeting, Respondent was apprised that her tardies and absences were excessive and that they, along with her failure to adhere to the other previously issued directives, constituted gross insubordination. On March 13, 2013, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher. Respondent's Criminal History Petitioner presented evidence that in August 2012, a records check for Respondent was generated after information was received from Petitioner's Fingerprinting Office indicating that Respondent had been arrested in January 2011 for violation of a protective injunction and in July 2011 for battery. However, this evidence consisted solely of hearsay. Petitioner did not present any non-hearsay evidence establishing that these arrests occurred. Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011. She acknowledged that she was arrested for battery in July 2011. She testified, credibly, that the arrest occurred over the July 4th holiday and that she timely reported this arrest by calling Petitioner's instructional staffing office. Respondent credibly testified that the charge was not prosecuted and ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not present any competent or credible evidence to refute Respondent's testimony on these points. Respondent's Defenses Respondent asserts that she was not tardy as frequently in the 2011-2012 school year as Petitioner asserts. She questions the accuracy of Surrancy's and others' recordkeeping regarding her tardiness. However, she did not present any specific evidence to show that Petitioner's records of her tardiness in the 2011-2012 were inaccurate; thus, her position on that point is essentially speculative. She also claims that Surrancy did not treat her fairly or equitably during the 2011-2012 school year. Specifically, she asserts that Surrancy had the authority and flexibility to adjust her workday schedule so that she did not have to cover a homeroom class, thus allowing her to arrive at work later, but that Surrancy unfairly chose not to do so. Respondent further asserts that Surrancy had provided such accommodation to another teacher in a previous school year. Thus, Respondent claims that Surrancy treated her unfairly.15/ However, Surrancy testified, persuasively, that she could not have relieved Respondent of having a homeroom in order to enable her to arrive later in the workday because instructional personnel, other than coaches and co-teachers, were assigned homeroom or other professional duties that required them to be at school during regular workday hours. Thus, there was no one else available to assume Respondent's homeroom class responsibilities.16/ Respondent also asserts that Surrancy treated her disparately and unfairly by singling her out for discipline for her tardies, while not disciplining others who also were often tardy. However, even if that were the case, it does not excuse Respondent's tardies or provide a basis for Surrancy to decline to enforce school policies with respect to Respondent. Respondent also asserts that she was not afforded the FMLA leave to which she was legally and contractually entitled. Specifically, she argues that she filed FMLA leave forms stating the need for intermittent leave to care for her son, so that for the days on which she was tardy, the number of minutes by which she was tardy should have been counted as leave under the FMLA. Respondent testified, credibly, that she did not purposely refuse to follow the directives given her by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards, and that her tardies during both school years were the result of her having to provide medical care for her young son and take him to daycare, then commute in heavy traffic to the worksites. Moreover, to the extent Petitioner claimed that Respondent was insubordinate because she did not adhere to directives to call the school if she was going to be tardy, Respondent credibly countered that she often would call in, only to be put on hold for some time and then told that the administrator she was attempting to reach was not available; thus, she started sending text messages instead to ensure that her message was received. Regarding the arrest reporting issue, Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011, and testified that she timely reported her July 2011 arrest to the appropriate authority. Findings of Ultimate Fact In these consolidated proceedings, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment17/ as a teacher on the basis of just cause——specifically, gross insubordination and misconduct in office.18/ As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that Respondent committed the violations of section 1012.33 and rules 6A-5.056; and 6B-1.001 and 6A-10.080; and 6B-1.006 and 6A-10.081. Gross Insubordination Pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent's conduct in accruing an extensive number of tardies during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years constituted gross insubordination. Although Respondent did submit leave request forms estimating the frequency and duration of FMLA-covered leave she would need in order to care for her son, the evidence shows that she was tardy far more frequently than supported by any of the forms she submitted. In order to accommodate an employee's FMLA request, Petitioner must be able to rely on the information the employee provides on the FMLA leave form. If the information provided on the form is inaccurate, Petitioner is neither required nor authorized to consider undocumented time away from the work site as leave covered under the FMLA.19/ While it is admittedly difficult to precisely predict when illness will occur, under any circumstances, the forms Respondent submitted did not cover the frequency of her tardies incurred in the 2011- 2012 and 2012-2013 school years.20/ As addressed above, it appears that Respondent was the victim of a coalescence of unfortunate personal circumstances that interfered with her employment. Nonetheless, the fact remains that she was repeatedly put on notice by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards that her continued tardiness would constitute gross insubordination. Any measures that Respondent purportedly took to rectify the circumstances, such as enlisting the help of a friend to take her son to daycare, apparently were unsuccessful. Respondent had the option in the 2011-2012 school year to transfer to another school to address the morning commute issues, but she chose not to. Although she had legitimate personal and professional reasons for choosing to remain at HMS, the fact remains that she elected not to pursue a course of action that may have addressed the problematic circumstances she found herself in. Under these circumstances, the undersigned concludes, albeit reluctantly, that Respondent's conduct——which took place over a period of two school years, after frequent admonitions, and after she had been placed on notice several times that her continued conduct would constitute gross insubordination——does, in fact, constitute gross insubordination. With respect to Respondent's absences in February 2013, the evidence indicates that Petitioner's Leave Office and Principal Warren unnecessarily delayed notifying Respondent that her leave request for February 2013 had been denied. The evidence gives rise to the inference that Respondent may have cut her leave short and returned to the work site had she been timely informed that her request had been denied. Moreover, Petitioner presented no competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the Leave Office's denial of Respondent's request, or for Warren's denial of Respondent's retroactive request on the same basis. Under these circumstances, the undersigned determines that Respondent's absences for the month of February 2013 should not be considered unexcused. However, even without considering these absences, Respondent's repeated tardiness over an extended period of time without proper leave documentation and after extensive prior notice of the consequences, is sufficient to establish gross insubordination. Misconduct in Office As more fully discussed below, Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed misconduct in office under both versions of rule 6A-5.056 in effect in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, respectively. Specifically, Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession because her conduct caused her to lose the respect and confidence of her colleagues. In particular, Respondent's frequent tardiness substantially undermined Surrancy's confidence in her reliability, and, thus, impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness over the course of the 2012-2013 school year also constituted misconduct in office. Again, she violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession by failing to maintain the respect and confidence of her colleagues. Respondent's frequent tardiness adversely affected Warren's confidence in her reliability. Additionally, on the days when Respondent's tardiness necessitated her students being moved to another teacher's classroom, her students' learning environment was disrupted, and her own ability and that of her colleagues to effectively perform their duties was reduced. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was impaired. Petitioner also charged Respondent with violating Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, which provides that all employees are representatives of the Miami-Dade County School District and requires employees to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Respondent's frequent tardies over an extended period of time gave the appearance of disregard for school policies and did not reflect credit on her or on the school district. Moreover, Respondent did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when they had to be moved to another teacher's classroom due to her tardiness.21/ Accordingly, Respondent violated Policy 3210. Respondent also violated Policy 3210.01, Petitioner's Code of Ethics. As found above, she did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when she was so tardy that they had to be moved to another classroom. However, Respondent did not violate Policy 3430, Leaves of Absence. For the reasons discussed above, Respondent's absences in February 2013 should not have been determined unexcused; thus, she did not violate Policy 3430. Respondent also did not violate Policy 3121.01, Employment Standards and Fingerprinting of Employees. To the extent Petitioner argues that Respondent lacks good moral character based on having been arrested, Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding her arrests or failure to timely report them as required by school board policy. Respondent acknowledged that she had been arrested in July 2011 but testified that she had timely reported it, and that the charge ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not offer any competent evidence22/ to counter Respondent's testimony, which is deemed credible and persuasive. Factual Basis for Recommended Sanction The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not purposely set out to violate school policies and Department of Education rules, but that circumstances coalesced such that Respondent found herself in the extremely difficult position of having to care for her very ill son and take him to daycare, then undertake a lengthy commute in morning traffic, without enough time to accomplish both. As unfortunate and trying as those circumstances were, they do not excuse Respondent from complying with the crucial and reasonable requirement that employees arrive to work on time.23/ Nonetheless, the evidence establishes that Respondent is an innovative, proficient teacher in the critical subject areas of science and math, and that she cares about performing her job well——to the extent that she declined an out-of-field teaching assignment, in part due to concern that she would not perform effectively in that assignment. As such, it is reasonable to infer that under less demanding circumstances, such as having a shorter commute or a later workday starting time, Respondent would perform her teaching duties proficiently and professionally. The circumstances in this case warrant upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013- 2014 school year, and denying back pay for the full period of her suspension. However, given the very trying circumstances Respondent faced in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, and because the evidence indicates that under less oppressive circumstances Respondent likely would be an innovative, proficient, and professional teacher, the undersigned believes that terminating Respondent's employment would be excessively harsh and that Petitioner would lose a good teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013-2014 school year; denying back pay for the full period of her suspension; and reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher at the start of the 2014- 2015 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 31st day of March, 2014
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, holds Teaching Certificate Number 475518, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of elementary education, grades 1-6. From 1968 or 1969 until 1980, Respondent worked for the School Board as a teacher aide. As a teacher aide, she had approximately twelve years to view a wide variety of teaching strategies, methods, and teaching techniques in the approximately six different schools to which she had been assigned. While employed as a teacher's aide, Respondent attended Miami-Dade Junior Community College, North Campus, and studied Initial Elementary Education. She then completed Bachelor's Training at Nova University in 1979 and thereafter became employed as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board at the Elementary Level beginning in the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent has been employed as an elementary teacher by Petitioner School Board since the 1980-1981 school year. During all of that period, she has taught at Perrine Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. During all of the years Respondent taught, except for the first year, she had classes approximately half of a regular size class. This was because she has been teaching Title I/Chapter I classes. "Title I", renamed "Chapter I", classes refer to classes funded and mandated as part of the Education Consolidation Improvement Act which targets children who are deficient in certain areas and concentrates on bringing them into the mainstream of the education process by concentrated remediation in small, directed education classes. It is a "given" that many of these children are difficult to teach and to control. 1980-1981 SCHOOL YEAR On October 29, 1980 Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by her principal, Gloria H. Gray. Although rated overall acceptable she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. Although rated acceptable in techniques of instruction, Respondent was rated unacceptable in one subcategory thereof because the proliferation of students' questions concerning the work indicated to the observer that the Respondent did not give clear assignments and directions to allow ample time for completion of tasks. Respondent was next formally observed by Principal Gray on December 12, 1980. Although Respondent was rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in classroom management because Mrs. Gray found much off-task behavior on the part of students, and Respondent appeared not to notice it. Through no fault of her own, Respondent had a very difficult first year experience with many interruptions. She was the foreman of the Grand Jury and was absent every Wednesday. In addition, she had legitimate family and medical problems causing frequent absences. To the extent possible, principal Gray initiated and followed through on numerous attempts to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in teaching. Mrs. Gray also provided an aide for Respondent in order to be assured that the education of her students was not being sorely neglected. Respondent was in a large pod with two other teachers. They helped Respondent in putting work on the board clearly. They also helped her in getting and using instructional material. Although Mrs. Gray testified that she was, in the spring of 1981, of the opinion that there was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, she nonetheless rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and gave Respondent an overall acceptable rating on her Annual Evaluation for the 1980-1981 school year. Mrs. Gray gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt because Respondent had improved her teaching skills during the year, she had a good attitude toward trying to improve, she took Mrs. Gray's recommendations and attempted to implement them, and Mrs. Gray expected further improvement from Respondent the following year. Mrs. Gray further recommended Respondent for re-employment as an annual contract teacher. 1981-1982 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by her new principal Dr. Joan Hanley, on November 23, 1981. While Respondent was very devoted to self-improvement, she was nevertheless rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of preparation and planning because she did not have complete lesson plans for each of the following subjects she was responsible to teach: social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. Likewise, she did not have plans which could be used by a substitute in the event of her absence. Although she was rated acceptable in classroom management, Dr. Hanley offered suggestions for Respondent's improvement. It was not clear to Dr. Hanley whether Respondent's students were grouped for math. It is a standard instructional strategy to ascertain the ability levels of the students, group them accordingly, and plan separate instruction for the various groups. She also instructed Respondent to stand up and move between her groups of students in order to monitor the random activity that goes on. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Assistant Principal Ellen Supran on January 6, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was found unacceptable in one subcategory, techniques of instruction. This subcategory deals with the use of instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Her students were not grouped for math instruction and the subject matter was too difficult and too abstract for the students. Respondent was not getting feedback from them. During the remainder of the school year, Mrs. Supran assisted Respondent through informal visitations. On these occasions, Mrs. Supran was concerned about Respondent's lesson plans, her children being off-task, and the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the students by Respondent. She spent time working with Respondent on lesson plans, materials, instructional strategies, grouping, and monitoring children's progress. Respondent had an accident during the 1981-1982 school year which resulted in extended sick leave. Dr. Hanley was unable to observe Respondent formally in the classroom for the remainder of that school year. Because Respondent was anxious to improve her teaching and because she had made a good start, Dr. Hanley felt that it was only fair to rate Respondent acceptable in all categories for her Annual Evaluation for the 1981-1982 school year. Therefore, for the school year 1981-1982, Respondent's second annual contract year, Respondent was found acceptable in all categories on her Annual Evaluation and was again recommended for employment. 1982-1983 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent's next formal observation was on November 23, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, because the observer, Dr. Hanley, felt Respondent needed improvement in grammar, particularly verb usage. More specifically, Dr. Hanley observed poor grammar was utilized orally by Respondent in the course of teaching other subjects. Hers was a significant error because Respondent was teaching a resource class in compensatory education. This is a remedial class which addressed the reading, language arts, and mathematics needs of low- achieving students. In every type of class, it is necessary that a teacher set a good example in spoken English. Because elementary school children model the speech of their teacher, Respondent's grammatical errors, which were frequent and excessive, would impede the students' acquisition of appropriate language arts skills. In remedial classes, the effect is more pronounced and reinforces poor language arts skills because the children are already deficient in that area. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was again found unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to make the same kinds of grammatical errors she had been observed making at the November 23, 1982 observation. The December 7, 1982 observation resulted in a prescription for remediation. Dr. Hanley suggested that Respondent record herself on a tape recorder so that she could become sensitized to verb forms. Respondent followed Dr. Hanley's advice and it helped on the subsequent observation, but she did not sustain the improvement as indicated below. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on February 10, 1983. She was rated overall acceptable and made only one grammatical error, saying "cent" sometimes instead of "cents." Note was made of excellent behavior modification. On Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1982-1983 school year, Dr. Hanley rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent had achieved tenure. 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on May 7, 1984. Although rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and in a single subcategory of preparation and planning. She was rated unsatisfactory in the latter subcategory because her room was so cluttered that it was difficult to carry on her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she was again making the same grammatical errors she had made the year before. (See Finding of Fact No. 20 that improvement was not sustained). For example, the following statements were written on Respondent's chalk board: "Dorothy want to go back home", " . . . work that I have not finish." Dr. Hanley reminded Respondent that they had worked on the "ed" and "s" endings on verbs before. Nonetheless, Respondent was rated acceptable in all areas on her Annual Evaluation for 1983-1984 and was recommended for continued employment as a continuing contract teacher. 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR Through the 1983-1984 school year, the School Board utilized the standard evaluation system which was an undefined system that allowed observers maximum discretion, without any clear or consistent criteria. It was essentially geared toward making any end-of-the year employment decision. With the advent of the 1984-1985 school year, a new method of evaluating teachers was put into effect. Beginning with the 1984-1985 school year, Respondent's performance was assessed under a new form of evaluation which was thoroughly tested by the School Board and which was negotiated and agreed-to between the School Board and Respondent's union. This is the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is a highly specific research-based clinical supervision system. State-of-the-art research has characterized certain teaching behaviors that are effective in a learning environment. TADS has grouped these into categories of assessment criteria. Required teaching behaviors are very precisely defined and there is very little room for discretionary interpretation by the observer. Ideally, the system is governed by decision rules which eliminate the potential of an arbitrary or capricious application of the criteria. The system is intended to further develop and upgrade teaching skills and assist the individual teacher to perform better. On the down side, TADS was characterized by the School Board's expert, Dr. Patrick Gray, as a clinical form of evaluation which primarily identifies teaching behavior which is simply acceptable, but it would not identify behavior of superior or excellent performance. (TR-II 47) Respondent's first formal classroom observation under TADS was on November 13, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she only carried out a very small part of the lesson and because she did not follow the assessment item in her lesson plan. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she presented the information to the children inadequately. There was no background given to draw out the students' previous understanding; no introduction, reinforcement, and drill; and no form of assessment to ascertain what the children had learned when the lesson was completed. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, because there was disorder a good part of the time and the class was not conducive to learning. Respondent and students arrived late. There were many delays during the class period. The cardboard coins utilized in the lesson on coin values became a great distraction and Respondent was unable to bring the coins into the lesson. She only got into the very introductory part of the lesson and rambled in her instruction. Respondent was not able to pull the students together into a group of attentive listeners. She was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she never fully instructed the students about her expectations regarding what they were to do at their desks. The coins became the major focus of the children's attention and they were tossing them and taking them from one another. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no assessment of the teaching objectives. As a result, there would be no way to tie up a lesson or help a teacher plan subsequent lessons. In order to aid Respondent in improving her performance, Dr. Hanley prescribed help. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent develop the skill of pacing her lessons so that she could complete the lesson within the allotted time; that Respondent seek help from Cynthia Muller, a PREP specialist, and that she also seek help from Dorothy Sissel, Chapter I Manager. Dr. Hanley also prescribed help in that she recommended that Respondent reorganize her room to make materials accessible for more efficiency. She recommended Mr. Holmberg, Assistant Principal, as a resource person. She also recommended that Respondent seek help from the Chapter I Specialist. Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent seek help from Chapter I and PREP specialists because she felt that the on-the- spot classroom training by these very qualified people would be very helpful to Respondent. PREP stands for Florida Primary Education Program, a program mandated by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 230.2312, Florida Statutes. PREP mandates a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that enables each child to have an individualized program to permit development of that child's maximum potential and to achieve a level of competence by that child in basis skills. Pursuant to this approach, students are divided into three categories, with those developing at a normal level being taught with developmental teaching strategies, those having been identified as having potential learning problems, being taught with preventive teaching strategies, and those needing more challenging work, being taught with enrichment teaching strategies. The School Board has developed reading and math programs to comply with the statutory mandate. Respondent actually received help from Cynthia Muller, the PREP Specialist, in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Muller helped Respondent approximately on 9 to 10 occasions for a total of approximately 12 hours of assistance. She provided this assistance on November 7, 9, 26, 29 and December 4, 1984, and on February 7, May 28, June 6, and 11, 1985. In the course of her assistance, Mrs. Muller observed several problems with Respondent's teaching. There was a lot of off- task behavior. The children were jittery and walked around the classroom at will. They exhibited little motivation. Mrs. Muller found that much of the work was inappropriate for the students, above the level for which they were competent. That added to the off-task behavior. On November 26, 1984, Mrs. Muller did a demonstration lesson for Respondent showing her how the children could be motivated to stay in their seats and work quietly. She also demonstrated the use of the teacher manual in planning for the complete class period so that all of the children would receive their reading lessons within the prescribed timeframe. On another occasion, they also discussed the Total Math Program (TMP), Petitioner School Board's diagnostic-prescriptive program for math. TMP provides for pre- and post-testing of students and clustering students into particular groups. They discussed grouping students, assessing them, planning for them, and instructing them using a teacher's manual. Mrs. Muller also suggested a positive re-enforcement type of reward system. She also suggested that Respondent remove books and materials from the instructional area so that the class would have a clean place to work and place their books. Mrs. Muller also noticed misspelled words and improperly used words on the chalkboard e.g., "When he finish the book." Mrs. Muller's assistance, November 7, 1984 to June 11, 1985 overlaps several subsequent formal observations. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. Despite Mrs. Muller's assessment on November 7 and 11 that there was some improvement, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had no assessment item in her lesson plan. Because Respondent told Dr. Hanley that she knew what was expected and she promised to do it in the future, Dr. Hanley did not make a further prescription in that area. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was still very disorderly. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent designate areas for specific subjects and tasks within her room. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her lesson, again, was considered by Dr. Hanley to be a rambling one. Dr. Hanley found the lesson components not to be sequenced; Respondent did not accent the important points; Respondent was unaware of what her students were doing; she did not provide suggestions to her students for improving performance; she did not adjust her lesson when students were not understanding but went right on with what she was teaching rather than re-teach a concept. Dr. Hanley did not feel Respondent provided for closure of the lesson so as to help the children pick up the critical areas of the lesson and so as to be ready for the next lesson. Respondent continued to make grammatical and spelling errors, e.g., "...Santa Clause and other tradition." In order to help Respondent improve her performances Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent observe two fellow teachers whom Dr. Hanley felt had excellent techniques of instruction. A conference-for-the-record was scheduled for the Respondent in December, 1984, but due to Respondent's illness and impending surgery, it was rescheduled for February 13, 1985. A conference-for-the-record is an official meeting regarding a teacher's teaching performance. It is required so that the teacher is officially notified that her deficient performance has not been remediated. At the conference, administrators went over Respondent's classroom observations. Respondent was notified that if she was still under prescription at the time of her Annual Evaluation, she would not receive her annual teaching increment (pay raise). From February through May, 1985, Perrine Elementary School was visited at least once a week by the Chapter I Educational specialist, Tarja Geis. She helped most of the teachers each time she visited. Chapter I is a federally funded program which addresses reading and math deficiencies in children from low income areas. It uses a language experience approach. Ms. Geis' opportunities to observe Respondent were short and sporadic. Her observations were not "formal" observations. However, when Ms. Geis did observe Respondent in the classroom, she noticed Respondent's inattentiveness to some of the children's behavior. She suggested ways to Respondent to improve that, most of which were "boilerplate" suggestions. Ms. Geis also observed one of Respondent's lessons and did a demonstration lesson for her on May 22, 1985, in order to show Respondent the language experience approach used in the Chapter I program. Ms. Geis discussed and/or demonstrated techniques to improve class management, student behavior, student comprehension and student attitude. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Geis gave a workshop for Chapter I teachers. All teachers who would have been working that day would have been in attendance. It is probable that Respondent attended that workshop. She had missed an earlier one in February because of her absence. Respondent indicated at formal hearing that she was not aware that Tarja Geis was a resource person for her use, but her perception is illogical in that Ms. Geis is a Chapter I Educational Specialist and Respondent teaches in the category of Chapter I students. Respondent also testified that she was not given in-service learning experiences by Dr. Hanley and Mr. Holmberg when she requested them. The workshop given by Ms. Geis would seem to address this request, contrary to Respondent's assertion. Respondent concurs that she attended at least one such workshop. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on March 21, 1985. By this time, Respondent had received help from Mrs. Muller and Ms. Geis. She may have also sought help from the two teachers at her school. By her own testimony, she sought assistance from Ms. Jackerson and by a course taught outside of the usual school day. She showed great improvement and was rated acceptable in every category. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom on May 7, 1985, simultaneously by Dr. Hanley and the area director, Phyllis Cohen. Under TADS, this is an external or dual observation where two observers assess the same classroom performance. Its purpose is to assure objectivity and fairness. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not carried out. While Respondent attempted to work with one group, the other groups' lessons were not implemented. The students were not on task. The group at the listening station was not doing its work. The group doing independent reading did not open their books. At least half the students did not receive their directed reading lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because her development of ideas and information was unclear and confusing. She would give insufficient definitions and did not reinforce with enough examples so that the students could understand the homework assignment. The lesson was not sequenced and Respondent was again using inaccurate language. The vocabulary words that the students were working on were not introduced to them and did not have any relationship to the lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was out of control and because of her problems in managing the transition time, getting and keeping students settled, and managing the different reading groups. Class started ten minutes late, and during transitions in the lesson, approximately twenty minutes were wasted. As the hour progressed, the noise crescendoed. Five to eight students were off-task at different times during the class. One student slapped another during the lesson. Respondent was not aware of the off-task behavior and did not redirect the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not introduce the lesson, provide opportunities for the students to practice, get feedback whether the students had obtained information, or provide reinforcement and follow-up. In other words the sequence was not appropriate. There was a lot of jumping around in the lesson. Respondent did not address the various learning styles of the students. Her communication was not precise enough for students to understand what she was trying to teach. She did not give the students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Although she used the teacher manual, she did not fill in between the questions with her own information. She asked the questions in a distorted manner. The students were unable to answer the questions and Respondent could not elaborate but went on to the next question. Her directions to the students were very poor, as were her explanations. She failed to rephrase explanations that were not understood. Her instructions to the listening station group were not specific enough. Her questions on the worksheet were not explained in a way that the students were able to proceed independently. They did not do the worksheet at all. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not assess what the students were learning at their levels. Material was presented at a low cognitive level. She did not seem to be able to ascertain whether the students were learning what she was teaching them. She did not walk around to determine what each group was doing. In order to help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she work with Mrs. Muller again on the execution of her lesson plans in order to facilitate a directed reading lesson for each of her reading groups. To help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she observe another Chapter I teacher during a reading lesson to hone in on the development of ideas and information in a sequential and meaningful manner. Two teachers were named as resources. To help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent work with Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal to develop strategies for effective student management while beginning classes and during transition periods and that she work with an observer to sensitize herself to off-task, nonproductive activities on the part of students. It was also recommended that Respondent revamp her behavior modification plan to enhance student involvement. To help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent again work with Ms. Geis and Mrs. Muller since she had improved after working with these two education specialists the prior year. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent review the elements in a basal reading lesson, i.e., background, sequence, and closure. She also recommended that Respondent rehearse her reading lesson so that she would think ahead about the main points and key definitions. She recommended that Respondent work with the observers to sensitize herself to situations in which the students are confused, and that she develop strategies to improve clarification. Dr. Hanley was also available to Respondent as a resource. In order to help Respondent improve techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent have a person observe Respondent while she was teachings and help her on the spot when her students were not following the lesson. She suggested the Respondent develop assessment techniques which incorporated multilevel assessment activities. She also recommended that Respondent include development of summative assessment instruments in conjunction with these other activities. She recommended that Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal be used as resources to help Respondent develop a sensitivity in identifying whether the students were on-track. On May 28, 19 85, Mrs. Muller discussed reading lessons with Respondent. She went over sequencing. She asked Respondent to rehearse her reading instruction. Mrs. Muller also gave Respondent a PREP teacher guide and a sample directed reading lesson. She referred her to a section on classroom organization and management. On June 6, 1985, Mrs. Muller was to visit Respondent's class and to observe a directed reading lesson. Respondent, however, was doing a different lesson. There was very little organization in the lesson. Mrs. Muller saw some improvement in the Respondent's teaching; however, considering the amount of time she had spent with the Respondent, she would have expected to have seen more progress. Although Respondent had demonstrated a willingness to receive suggestions for improvement and a willingness to work toward acceptable ratings, her Annual Evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year was unacceptable. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Nonetheless, Respondent was recommended for continued employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. It was Dr. Hanley's hope that Respondent would remediate herself during the next school year. Respondent remained on prescription and would not be entitled to her pay increment (raise) for the next school year while she was still on prescription. 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On October 16 and 17, 1985, Respondent received more help from a fellow teacher, Joyce King. Ms. King discussed with Respondent the instructional processes of sequencing, interfacing subjects, and closure. Ms. King also demonstrated a reading lesson for Respondent. On October 22, 1985, Respondent received further help from another teacher, Doretha P. Thomas. Respondent observed Ms. Thomas during a developmental reading lesson in her class. Ms. Thomas also discussed with Respondent the amount of time used with the reading group, scheduling, and possible changes Respondent could make in her own planning. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on October 30, 1985. The class was working on the Dade County required diagnostic-prescriptive reading curriculum known as RSVP. This curriculum contemplates that students are to be pretested and their deficiencies listed on individual profiles so that the teacher knows what specific skills to teach them. It is mandatory that the students' skills be profiled before the teacher attempts to work with them. Respondent had not completed the RSVP paperwork as of the date of this observation. I accept Respondent's testimony that she only had from October 18 until October 30, 1985 in which to complete these profiles; that she was under some disadvantage in preparing the profiles because of the administration's peremptory move of all her materials to a smaller classroom on Friday October 18; and that her observation rating was somewhat tainted by the temporary mess that resulted from the move. However, I find that the period involved would have been sufficient to complete at least the profiles if she had performed her tasks diligently in the intervening seven workdays. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because the class was not well managed and the students were not working. After the midpoint of the period, three students did no work. In the last ten minutes of the periods, six students did no work. Many students completed worksheets during the first twenty minutes of the class and then colored pictures. These students of Respondent's were not re- directed by her. Respondent seemed to be unaware of the off-task behavior. In order to help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent move among the students periodically. She also recommended the Respondent plan sufficient work for the instructional period and that she clarify to students what additional study and enrichment activities were available when work is completed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not monitoring pupil performance. Students were doing work incorrectly on their worksheets, and Respondent did not circulate and catch the errors or clarify them. Therefore, incorrect material was being reinforced by the students in their work. Several of the students did not understand the follow- up worksheets. The students' confusion indicated that they were not being taught at their appropriate level. They were being taught on a hit or miss method since their profiles had not been completed. In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that she fulfill the requirements of RSVP by completing her profiles, grouping her children, and making a class profile chart. Dr. Hanley also recommended that the teacher aide assist Respondent with the pretesting. Dr. Hanley listed the area PREP specialist and herself to review grouping for instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because although she, as part of her school faculty, had been instructed every year as to the School Board requirements for maintaining student folders, her student folders were deficient. She had no papers dated after September 19, 1985 in them. In order to help Respondent improve her assessment techniques, Dr. Hanley clarified what was expected as far as classroom folders. Respondent must have at least one graded and dated paper per week in reading, math, and writing in each student's folder. Dr. Hanley listed herself and other classroom teachers as a resource for Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal, Herbert Holmberg. He rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had grammatically incorrect information and statements on the chalkboard. Knowledge of subject matter was not exhibited as Respondent read verbatim from the teacher manual. She did not address various cognitive levels. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Mr. Holmberg recommended that Respondent prepare her material, information, and directions in advance and that her verbal and written usage be grammatically correct. He suggested more flexibility and elaboration during reading. He also suggested that the subject matter be presented at more than one level. As recommended resources, he listed the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and a peer teacher. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not have a sequence in the lesson. The grammar on the board was incorrect. Her spelling was incorrect. There was no variety to her activities. There was no assessment of closure in the lesson. As resources for help, he recommended the Assistant Principal, the PREP specialist, and a peer teacher. Another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 9, 1985. Respondent's teaching performance was discussed. Dr, Hanley was hopeful the Respondent would be able to remediate her deficiencies; however, Respondent was put on notice that if she was not fully remediated by the close of the school year she would be recommended for termination for cause. Respondent was next formally observed by Charles Sherwood, Directors Basic Skills on December 13, 1985. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Respondent testified that Dr. Sherwood orally indicated to her that her rating was satisfactory and created no problems but the business record of the school (P 30) shows that he rated her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because all of the pupils received the same spelling lesson, despite the differences in their reading levels; and that he rated her unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because, although the school year was very close to being halfway over, Respondent still had not completed her PREP roster. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in her classroom in another external observation on March 17, 1986, by Dr. Hanley and Mrs. Cohen, and she was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because there were a substantial number of errors in teaching the concept "1/2". The words "equal" and unequal" were not used, although they were key vocabulary words in the teacher's manual for the lesson. Respondent told the children that a whole with a line in it becomes one-half. She did not indicate that the line had to be in the middle of the whole in order for there to be halves. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of her subject matter, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent use the teacher's manual for planning and delivering of instruction. It was requested the Respondent master the use of and use the words "equal" and "unequal" appropriately. She also recommended the Respondent use the area specialists, peer teachers, and the Assistant Principal as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the explanations of the concept of a whole, half, and fractions were not clear to the reviewer, and the reviewers felt the components necessary to address the key concepts were not effectively presented, thereby confusing she children, and an appropriate vocabulary was not used. They felt Respondent's lesson was again lacking in sequence. Additional resources and suggestions for improvement were prescribed to Respondent. Another conference-for-the-record was held with the Respondent on April 16, 1986. Some of Respondent's concerns regarding the TADS process were addressed. Respondent's improvement was discussed and Respondent was again notified that if she failed to be removed from prescription by the end of this second year of deficiency, recommendation of dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in the classroom in another external observation by Dr. Hanley and Evelyn Evans, another area director. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subtracting. The errors which she made on the board were not corrected. She also made errors in the process itself. These errors were demonstrated on a chalkboard at formal hearing which was erased without being admitted in evidence, but the oral testimony and business records of this observation are sufficient to support this finding. Respondent did not correct student errors, used inappropriate terminology referred to the one's and ten's columns as the right column and left columns and thereby confused the children. Dr. Hanley found the deficiencies in this lesson very similar to the math lesson observed on March 17, 1986. Respondent was still using her own vocabulary. Despite the fact that most of the children in her class and certainly most of our society could understand Respondent's use of "take away" for "subtract" and use of similar colloquialisms, the School Board established the need for more precise and consistent language in teaching early math skills. Respondent did not show evidence of having mastered the subject matter. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Hanley again emphasized mastery of vocabulary and concepts in the teacher's manual and advised adhering closely to the recommended word usage and plan of instruction. Respondent was instructed not to use her own vocabulary and methods until she had total command of the material. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of many errors. The lesson was not properly sequenced; the children did not have a basic understanding of subtracting without regrouping before beginning subtracting with regrouping; Respondent's use of her own vocabulary confused the children; Respondent did not clarify by rephrasing with different words, but rather, used the same vocabulary over again that the children had not understood the first time. Respondent blocked the chalkboard while she was demonstrating to the class, was inattentive to the need for a chair by one student, and required a reading level of the children in math for which they were not prepared. Respondent again demonstrated improper subject-verb agreement, e.g., "What is the numbers?" and dropping endings on verbs, e.g., "As time go on", "Three minus two leave one." In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley again recommended the Respondent work with another second grade teacher to understand and become proficient in following the sequence and the delivery of instructions to include introduction, background, and the other steps in sequencing. She was also instructed to master the vocabulary and instructional plans in the teacher's manual and to adhere to them while teaching. She was instructed to develop a method for re-teaching individual students who appeared not to understand the lesson. Another conference-for-the-record was held on June 6, 1986. Respondent's unacceptable teaching performance was reviewed. Respondent was advised that a recommendation for dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was also given an end of the year prescription, as required by TADS. Although Respondent had improved her classroom management during the year, she was still unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the 1985-1986 school year. The two unacceptable categories are key categories in teaching. Improvement in these had either been slight or not at all, and Dr. Hanley had exhausted the school system's resources in attempting to assist Respondent. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing corroborates her supervisors' observations as to her failure to exhibit appropriate English grammar and usage with regard to subject-verb tenses. Gloria Jackerson, a retired teacher, testified on behalf of Respondent. Although this retired teacher of 21 years and a candid witness, she is Respondent's best friend. While this relationship may not have colored her favorable testimony, she admits that she has never observed Respondent teach in the classroom nor has she taught Chapter I students in Miami-Dade County under the present program. Therefore, her testimony with regard to Respondent's competency must be rejected. Evidence presented by several satisfied parents is all in Respondent's favors however, most had no training in classroom observation nor were they able to observe Respondent teaching in her classroom over any significant period of time. Their observations, therefore, were of minimal duration and purely subjective. No objective records showing whether their children were promoted or how their children progressed under Respondent's teaching were offered to substantiate their layman's viewpoint. With regard to the testimony of Robert Collins, a Learning Disability teacher in the Dade County School System, who requested that his child be placed in the Respondent's class and who had a brief opportunity to observe Mrs. Brewer in the classroom and who testified that her classes were well managed, his observation opportunities were so brief and so sporadic as to not outweigh the greater weight of the expert testimony of Petitioner's witnesses. The supportive evidence of Geraldine Townsend, another Perrine teachers is not helpful to Respondent in that this witness also had no truly meaningful observations of Respondent. The testimony of Mrs. Collins, a mother and also a teacher's aide, that some of the formal observers made Respondent's classes nervous and jittery is accepted, but this circumstance does not eliminate or seriously mitigate Respondent's responsibilities to teach effectively and to keep her students under control during observations. Respondent Brewer has worked hard to obtain her education and position. She is a deeply religious, compassionate, and caring individual. She has the type of supportive personality the young people of this society dearly need to know and relate to. She has good rapport with the young and communicates with them in loving and supportive ways. However, her personal qualifications and attributes do not outweigh the clear and convincing evidence of her incompetency as demonstrated by the foregoing Findings of Fact. On August 20, 1986, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent, 55 years old, from employment, 2.20 years short of her attaining full retirement, and further initiated dismissal procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, as of August 20, 1986, of Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, and dismissing Respondent Anna M. Brewer as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for five years or until she demonstrates competency pursuant to statute and ruled whichever occurs first. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 86-3926, 87-0468 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner School Board's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2 and 3. Covered and corrected to reflect the record in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 7. 6-8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as set out in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 8. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, it is covered in FOF 9. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. Partially addressed in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 13. 16-18. Covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 15. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. 22-23. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 20. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. Except to the extent it required expansion to fully conform to the record and except to the extent its proposals are subordinate and unnecessary, this proposal is covered in FOF 26. 33.-42. Covered in FOF 27-28. 43.-47. Except as contrary to the record for expression or subordinate, covered in FOF 29. Covered in FOF 30. Covered in FOF 31. Covered in FOF 32. Covered in FOF 33. Covered in FOF 34. Covered in FOF 35. Covered in F0F 36. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 37. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 38. Covered in FOF 39. Covered in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 42. , 62., 64., 66. and 68. are covered in FOF 43. , 63., 65., 67. and 69. are covered in FOF 44. 70.-73. Covered in FOF 45. Covered in FOF 46. Covered in FOF 47. Covered in FOF 48. Covered, expanded and modified so as to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole in FOF 49. Covered in FOF 50. Covered in FOF 51. Covered in FOF 52. Covered in FOF 50 and 53. Covered in FOF 54. Covered in FOF 55. Covered in FOF 56. Covered in FOF 57. Covered in FOF 58. Covered in FOF 59. Covered in FOF 60. 89-91. Expanded and modified to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record and to eliminate the subordinate and unnecessary in FOF 61. Covered in FOF 62. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 63 and 65. Covered in FOF 64. 95-96. Covered in FOF 65 except for cumulative and unnecessary material. Covered in FOF 66. Covered in FOF 67. Covered and expanded in FOF 68. Covered in FOF 69. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative, covered in FOF 70. Covered in FOF 71. Covered in FOF 72. Covered in FOF 73. Rejected as cumulative. Covered in FOF 74. Rejected as cumulative. Covered and expanded in FOF 80. Petitioner Betty Castor's (EPC's) PFOF Since this petitioner adopted the PFOF of Petitioner School Board, the rulings are also the same. Respondent's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. There is no PFOF. Covered in FOF 7-13, most specifically in FOF 13. Covered in FOF 14-17, most specifically in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 18-22, most specifically in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23-25, most specifically in FOF 25. 9-10. Covered in FOF 26. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 75. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 77. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 76. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 78. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madeline P. Schere, Esquire Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 J. David Holders Esquire 211 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
