The Issue The issues in this case revolve around the question whether Respondent's employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public School System should be terminated either for failure to correct identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, or for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Clemons is an elementary school teacher. She entered the profession in 1972 after graduating from Florida A&M University. In addition to her bachelor's degree, Clemons holds a Teacher's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education. From 1972 until 1988, Clemons taught both in Florida public schools and (for seven of those years) in Department of Defense schools overseas. After a hiatus from teaching, 2/ Clemons returned to the classroom in October 1990 as a substitute teacher in the Broward County Public School System. She performed well enough in that capacity to be offered a full- time teaching position at North Side Elementary School ("North Side"), beginning in January of 1994. The following school year, Clemons transferred to Lauderdale Manors, joining the instructional staff in August of 1994 as a second grade teacher. There, she soon attracted the attention of Doris Bennett ("Bennett"), the school's new principal. Bennett, a classroom teacher for approximately 13 years before spending six years as an assistant principal at several Broward County elementary schools, had assumed the position of Lauderdale Manors' principal on July 1, 1994. By the end of September 1994, she was growing concerned about Clemons' apparent inability to control and manage her classroom. By law, each public school teacher in the state must be assessed at least once a year to determine how his or her performance measures against criteria that are required to be communicated in advance to all personnel. 3/ To perform this assessment, performance evaluators in the Broward County Public School District use a tool called the Instructional Personnel Assessment System ("IPAS"). The IPAS requires that a teacher be rated in ten "performance areas": "instructional planning," "lesson management," "lesson presentation," "student performance evaluation," "communication," "classroom management," "behavior management," "records management," "subject matter knowledge," and "professional competencies." A teacher's categorical ratings of "S - Satisfactory," "N - Needs Improvement," or "U - Unsatisfactory" are based on the assessor's determination of the teacher's compliance with various "performance indicators" prescribed for each performance area. In addition to, and based upon, the several categorical ratings, the teacher is assigned a single "overall performance rating." Bennett testified that one categorical rating of "U" would result in an overall "unsatisfactory" performance rating. In April 1995, toward the end of the 1994-95 school year (Clemons' first at Lauderdale Manors), Bennett completed Clemons' annual evaluation. Using the IPAS, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in two performance areas, namely, classroom management and behavior management. These negative marks resulted in Clemons receiving an overall performance rating of "U." Bennett recommended that Clemons be dismissed. Clemons' employment might have been terminated in 1995 but for the fact that on March 10, 1995, Bennett had signed a Final Assessment form attesting that, in her "professional opinion," Clemons had "successfully completed the Professional Orientation Program" for first-year teachers. Because Bennett's recommendation of dismissal followed so closely after a favorable assessment of Clemons' performance, it was not approved. Bennett assigned Clemons to a fifth grade class for the 1995-96 school year, reasoning that she might succeed with older children. Although Bennett and former Assistant Principal Roach both testified at hearing that Clemons' problems persisted, 4/ a contemporaneous record suggests that the teacher performed better in her second year at Lauderdale Manors than she had during her first. On May 31, 1996, Bennett signed an IPAS instrument showing that Clemons had received a "satisfactory" rating in all categories, earning an overall performance rating of "satisfactory." Bennett qualified this positive evaluation, however, with a recommendation that Clemons be offered another annual contract, rather than the more favorable professional service contract for which she was then eligible. The reason, Bennett wrote on the IPAS form, was that Clemons still needed "to work on improving classroom and behavior management skills." Bennett's recommendation was not approved. Instead, Clemons was promoted to professional service contract status for the 1996-97 school year. That year, Bennett put Clemons in charge of a fifth grade "drop-out prevention" class. The drop- out prevention class had about half as many students as a regular class (14-18 as opposed to 32-35) and afforded the teacher greater flexibility with the curriculum. For these reasons, Bennett believed that the drop-out prevention class might be more suitable for Clemons. William Roach, who was the Assistant Principal at the time, explained that “this was done as an effort or a plan, if you will, to really give Ms. Clemons an opportunity to maybe come out of the classroom for awhile, get a perspective, maybe, you know, have a chance to be successful.” (T. 187.) On the other hand, Bennett acknowledged that the children in this special class were "academically challenged," "less motivated," and hence more difficult to teach than other students. 5/ The IPAS form containing Clemons' assessment for the 1996-97 school year, which Bennett signed on May 30, 1997, and Clemons refused to sign, reflects a deterioration in Clemons' performance. She received a "needs improvement" rating in the categories of lesson management and student performance evaluation. Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of classroom management and behavior management. Her overall performance rating was a "U." Clemons filed a grievance with the Broward Teachers' Union to protest this negative evaluation. Interceding on Clemons' behalf, a union representative requested that Bennett produce documentation supporting her unfavorable assessment of Clemons' skills. Bennett could not do so. Consequently, at the union's suggestion, Bennett changed Clemons' overall performance rating to "satisfactory" for the 1996-97 school year. Clemons continued to teach in the fifth grade drop-out prevention class during the 1997-98 school year. And she continued to have problems. For example, after personally observing Clemons in her classroom on February 23, 1998, Bennett wrote: “Have noticed some, slight improvement this year, but still not enough to warrant upgrading overall evaluation to satisfactory.” Roach, the Assistant Principal at Lauderdale Lakes from 1993 through the end of the 1997-98 school year, was less generous: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. During that four academic school year period [1994 through 1998], give me an overall assessment as to how Ms. Clemons’ behavioral management that was reflected in her classroom progressed? A [by Roach]. I felt that it did not progress. In fact, if anything, it digressed or regressed. As I said, the frequency of going down to the room for problems became more. (T. 186.) And then a new layer that was added as the [sic] was the fact that parents were complaining about the classroom and asking to have their children taken out of the room. There seemed to be just a total lack of respect, students for teacher, but I also observed sometimes that Ms. Clemons’ respect for the students was also lacking and I felt that sometimes there was an unhealthy situation and there were occasions in support of her that we did move children out. Nevertheless, the IPAS form that Bennett signed on May 29, 1998, reported that Clemons was performing satisfactorily in all areas; her overall performance rating for the 1997-98 school year was “satisfactory.” Thus, contrary to Roach’s recollection, the contemporaneous IPAS evaluation shows that Clemons’ performance did improve in her fourth year at Lauderdale Manors. The following year, 1998-99, Clemons was assigned to a regular fifth grade class. She did not do well. Here is how Keith Miller, who started as Assistant Principal that year, described his initial observations of Clemons: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. With regard to your first year as AP at Lauderdale Manors, '98 to '99, during the course of that year, did it come to your attention any performance concerns or deficiencies with regard to Ms. Clemons' classroom? A [by Miller]. Yes. Q. And what were those areas of deficiency that you were aware of in '98/'99? A. [T]he reason . . . Ms. Clemons was brought to my attention . . . was parental complaints. As I stated in my deposition, I wanted to seek out and find out for myself if these parental complaints were warranted as a concern for our classroom management. Q. So, how would you seek that out? A. By going into the classroom and observing. * * * Q. What types of things were you looking for . . . in '98/'99 during your observations? A. Initially, as I've stated earlier, my concern was to see if the parental complaints were warranted as it pertains to classroom management and the concern with parents saying the children were coming home and saying one thing. And, you know, as a teacher and an educator and also as a parent we know that the children sometimes will extend the truth to get what they want. But I wanted to find out if that was the case. Well, after doing my observations in the classroom, also on a formal observation, which you all have, often times I would walk up to a classroom that was chaotic with the noise. There are different types of noise. There is an active learning noise, let's make no mistake there, and there is a noise where there is disruption. And often times, one particular observation I went in, there were students out of their seats, there were paper airplanes thrown, Ms. Clemons yelling. And one of the things was, "You need to sit down," without a consequence being rolled out or dished out or implemented at that time. And it was very evident early on that the parental complaints and the student responses were, in effect, true with regards to classroom management. (T. 194-97.) Bennett also observed Clemons at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. The principal noticed problems with behavior management, and also deficiencies relating to the delivery of instruction, such as incomplete lesson plans, blank student writing journals, falling behind in teaching the prescribed math curriculum, and failure to put subject "openers" (e.g. math and reading assignments) on the chalk board in the morning so that students could begin working immediately upon arrival. After an IPAS evaluation for the period from August 25 to October 1, 1998, Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. As a result, effective October 2, 1998, Bennett placed Clemons "on documentation," meaning that she would have 90 days in which to correct the identified performance deficiencies, pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d)2.a., Florida Statutes. In Bennett's opinion, Clemons did not correct the identified deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. Therefore, she recommended that Clemons' contract be terminated. The superintendent, however, did not timely act on Bennett's recommendation. 6/ Consequently, Clemons could not be dismissed. Returning to Lauderdale Manors for the 1999-00 school year, Clemons was assigned to teach a regular third grade class. By design, she was placed in a classroom located close to the administrative office, for support and assistance. Assistant Principal Miller visited her class on September 17, 1999. As he remembered: When . . . I walked into the room, one of the first things I noticed she was doing was reading, but it took her 10 minutes just to get her started when I walked in. That's noted here [on a Classroom Observation/Feedback Form prepared by Miller and signed by him and Clemons on September 17, 1999]. The lesson was broken up with student interruptions and lack of preparation. * * * One of the other things prior to walking in the classroom, I would stand outside the classroom and I heard children screaming, yelling. And I used the word, I felt chaos when I walked in. And you have to understand, when I walk into the classrooms immediately the tone is going to go down because of my presence in the classroom. So when I walked in, it did calm down. There were five students after I sat down when I circulated the room sleeping while she was attempting to teach reading. And my question to her was, How are you keeping track of misbehavior? Because she was telling people to do things, but not monitor[ing] it properly. (T. 202-04.) Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons as well. On September 27, 1999, Bennett met with Clemons to discuss several classroom observations, including one that had been made on that day. Bennett remained concerned about Clemons' deficiencies in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. Bennett approved Clemons' request to observe two other third grade teachers, to learn from them. Bennett also decided to place a paraprofessional (teacher's aide) in Clemons' classroom for assistance. Bennett observed Clemons' class on October 20, 1999, and saw no improvement. Previously identified deficiencies in the areas of student discipline and presentation of subject matter persisted. Indeed, by this time, Clemons' class had dwindled to 11 students — and even these few were misbehaving. On October 22, 1999, Bennett placed Clemons on 90-day performance probation, effective immediately and ending February 11, 2000. Bennett notified Clemons of her decision, as well as the statutory procedures applicable to a performance probation, by memorandum dated October 22, 2000. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. As explained in a separate memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett placed Clemons on probation due to her ongoing and documented concern about Clemons' performance in the areas of behavior management and instructional planning. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. Additionally, by yet another memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett scheduled a conference with Clemons for October 27, 2000, to discuss the preparation of a Performance Development Plan. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. When a Broward County public school teacher's performance is determined to be unsatisfactory, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") is prepared for, and with input from, the affected teacher. The purpose of the PDP is to assist the teacher in correcting identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. On October 27, 2000, two PDPs were executed by Bennett and Clemons. One addressed Clemons' identified deficiencies in the area of behavior management. The other dealt with her deficiencies relating to instructional planning. The PDP concerning behavior management included a the following description of Clemons' perceived shortcomings: The teacher fails to: maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice by: establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. formulating appropriate standards for student behavior identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction. Under the heading, "Strategies for Improvement, Correction, and Assistance," this PDP enumerated the following interventions: To date (10/27/99), by parental requests, a total of five (5) students have been removed from teacher's classroom to assist in alleviating severe disciplinary concerns. Teacher will be provided with an aide to assist with classroom behavior management. (This strategy will be in place during the week of November 1, 1999.) Alliance Coach will observe teacher and provide suggestions and feedback on effective classroom behavior management techniques. Curriculum Facilitator will observe teacher and provide specific suggestions and feedback on routines and procedures teacher can implement on effective transitioning techniques. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for behavior management strategies. Grade 3 Team Leader will assist teacher in developing and implementing a classroom discipline plan. Team Leader will demonstrate, model, plan, and provide feedback. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective behavior management strategies. Teacher will attend a behavior management workshop, review observations with administrator, and implement appropriate strategy(ies) in own classroom. The PDP document advised Clemons that if she failed to correct all areas identified as deficient by February 11, 2000, she would receive an "Unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation," and a "recommendation for termination of contract" would be made. The PDP for correcting Clemons' problems in the area of instructional planning described her identified deficiencies as follows: The teacher fails to: select, adapt or develop, and sequence instructional materials and activities for the designated set of instructional objectives and student needs. create interest through the use of materials and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and background of students. use individual student interests and abilities when planning and implementing instruction. The prescribed interventions for these deficiencies were: Alliance Coach will assist in providing appropriate materials, orienting techniques, demonstrating and modeling instructional strategies, transitioning techniques, and improving the overall learning environment of the classroom. Alliance Coach will meet weekly with teacher to provide specific support and assistance with feedback. Grade 3 Team Leader will review strategies and provide intensive support and assistance in areas of aligning objectives with lesson plans which focus on content, materials, lesson presentation, and student activities. Curriculum Facilitator will model and demonstrate a reading lesson, provide feedback, observe teacher presenting a lesson, and provide feedback of reading lesson to teacher. This process will be repeated on a weekly basis through November 18, 1999. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for instructional planning and lesson management. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective instructional planning. Like the other PDP, this one notified Clemons that failure to correct all identified deficiencies by February 11, 2000, would result in a recommendation that her contract be terminated. As Miller testified, "this [the coordinated intervention strategy set forth in the PDPs] wasn't an afterthought where we just patchwork everything together. We worked together as a team in order to help [Clemons] meet with success." (T. 209.) Jounice Lewis is a Coach with the Alliance of Quality Schools (the "Alliance") in Broward County. The Alliance is a local program that provides assistance, in the person of coaches such as Lewis, to teachers in low performing schools. 7/ Alliance coaches help teachers with curriculum instruction. They are not invited into a school except upon the vote of 80 percent of the faculty. Taking part in the implementation of the PDPs that Clemons had approved, Lewis observed, counseled, and assisted Clemons while she was on 90-day performance probation during the 1999-00 school year. Lewis remembered a teacher who was having difficulties: "Often [Clemons'] class was disruptive, and I think that this may have been because there was not a routine." (T. 162.) The reading center was "not inviting." (T. 165.) The physical environment was not "conducive to learning;" one time, Clemons' students "were all around the classroom rather than in one area." (T. 166.) "Ms. Clemons' classroom was not organized, it was in disarray." (T. 167.) In Lewis's opinion, the behavior of Clemons' students did not seem to improve during the 90-day probation period. Further, Lewis observed at hearing that although Clemons had been receptive to Lewis's suggestions, she nevertheless had failed to improve her performance in the area of classroom control or management. Lewis was sure that Clemons had the "content knowledge" but felt that Clemons was unable to teach what she knew because her classroom was not under control. Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons during the probation period. Using the IPAS instrument, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in the categories of instructional planning 8/ and behavior management 9/ for the period from October 22, 1999 through November 10, 1999. On this same IPAS, Bennett also assigned Clemons a rating of "needs improvement" in the area of records management. 10/ Bennett and Clemons both signed this IPAS form on November 15, 1999. Between November 11, 1999 through December 1, 1999, Bennett again assessed Clemons using the IPAS, rating her "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. In this period, Clemmons improved her rating in the records management area to "satisfactory," but slipped to "needs improvement" in the category, lesson presentation. 11/ Bennett and Clemons signed this IPAS evaluation form on December 9, 1999. On December 10, 1999, Clemons met with Bennett for a mid-point evaluation. Also in attendance was Valerie Proffer, a union representative. Bennett called this meeting to inform Clemons of progress achieved, as well as to make recommendations for correcting deficiencies that persisted. The minutes of the mid-point review meeting report that the participants discussed the many types of assistance that already had been provided Clemons, which included the services not only of Coach Lewis, but also input from the school's Curriculum Facilitator (who had provided suggestions and feedback on effective transitioning techniques) and the Grade 3 Team Leader (who had helped Clemons develop and implement a classroom discipline plan). Bennett notified Clemons that classroom behavior management remained a major area of concern and that deficiencies relating to instructional planning still needed to be corrected. The principal made specific recommendations for curing these problems and prescribed additional interventions, including the retention of an outside consultant to videotape Clemons for a self-critique. By memorandum dated February 3, 2000, Bennett notified Clemons that she had scheduled a conference for February 11 (the last day of the 90-day probation period) to discuss the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons, which would cover the period from January 27, 2000 to February 11, 2000. Also on the agenda for discussion were Clemons' PDPs and her "continued employment at Lauderdale Manors Elementary School." Clemons acknowledged receipt of this memorandum by signing it on February 3, 2000. On an IPAS form dated February 11, 2000, Bennett recorded her final assessment of Clemons. She concluded that Clemons' performance was "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. The ratings of "U" in these two categories compelled an overall performance rating of "unsatisfactory." Clemons received a "satisfactory" rating, however, in the eight other performance areas identified on the IPAS: lesson management, lesson presentation, student performance evaluation, communication, classroom management, records management, subject matter knowledge, and professional competencies. Thus, while the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons showed, on the one hand, that she had not corrected all identified performance deficiencies, it did demonstrate, on the other, that the teacher had improved during the 90-day probation period in the areas of records management and lesson presentation, and also that she was performing satisfactorily in most of the rated performance areas. Clemons attended the meeting on February 11, 2000, that Bennett had scheduled. At the meeting, Bennett provided Clemons with her final IPAS evaluation. Clemons disagreed with the evaluation and refused to sign it. Bennett informed Clemons that because performance deficiencies remained, she would recommend termination of Clemons' contract. Dwight Hamilton, a BTU representative who attended the meeting, explained the termination process to Clemons. Bennett told Clemons that the next Monday, February 11, 2000, she was to report to the Media Center rather than her classroom, from which Clemons was now being removed. Clemons became angry with Bennett and Assistant Principal Miller (who was also present) and apparently made some intemperate remarks, but these were not the subject of formal charges. By memorandum dated February 11, 2000, Bennett notified the superintendent of her recommendation that Clemons be dismissed immediately, pursuant to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, for failure to correct performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. The superintendent accepted Bennett's recommendation and so informed Clemons by letter dated February 16, 2000. The superintendent advised Clemons, "[p]ursuant to Florida Statute ," that he would recommend to the Board, at its meeting on March 7, 2000, that she first be suspended without pay and, thereafter, dismissed from employment. He expressly predicated the recommendation of suspension without pay on "unsatisfactory job performance." As apparent additional legal authority for his intended recommendations to the Board, the superintendent cited to, and quoted from, Section 230.33(7)(e), Florida Statutes. The superintendent closed his letter by notifying Clemons that the Board would act on his recommendation to dismiss her at its meeting on April 4, 2000, unless she made a written request for formal administrative proceedings before the close of business on March 22, 2000. Clemons timely requested a hearing by letter dated March 2, 2000. The Board met on March 7, 2000, and suspended Clemons without pay pending termination of her contract. A memorandum dated March 15, 2000, to the Supervisor of Personnel Records confirms that Clemons was suspended without pay effective March 8, 2000. Clemons has not complained about any alleged defects in notice or other procedures. Clemons does contend, however, that the assistance afforded her at times interfered with her ability to teach and was not always helpful. 12/ The preponderance of evidence showed, however, that the interventions prescribed for her benefit were appropriate and designed to help Clemons overcome her noted performance deficiencies. In short, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that the Board followed the procedures and met its substantive responsibilities under Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Clemons did not correct all of the performance deficiencies that were identified at the outset of her performance probation in October 1999. At hearing, Clemons admitted that deficiencies in the area of behavior management had not been "totally corrected" by the end of the 90-day probation in February 2000. (T. 134.) While Clemons maintains, with some evidentiary support, that she made progress during the probation period, the established fact is that performance deficiencies, at least in the area of behavior management, remained as of February 11, 2000. In sum, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that Clemons' performance deficiencies were not "satisfactorily corrected" during the 90- day probation, as that phrase is used in Section 231.29(3)(d)2.b., Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the evidence failed to show, however, that Clemons was guilty of any "just cause" for dismissal within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 13/ Specifically, as will be discussed below in the legal conclusions, a preponderance of evidence did not show, as fact, that Clemons either committed "misconduct in office" or demonstrated "incompetency" as those terms are defined in Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board: (1) reinstate Clemons and pay her back salary from March 8, 2000, through the date of reinstatement, pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) terminate Clemons' employment pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 28th day of December, 2000.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be suspended or dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida (Board).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses the following findings of fact are made: Respondent was employed as a first grade elementary school teacher at Fulford Elementary School during the 1988-89 school year. In September, 1988, the principal at Fulford Elementary, Mrs. Pope, asked the primary education coordinator for region 2, Mrs. Neely, to perform an observation and assessment of all primary teachers at Fulford. Accordingly, Mrs. Neely observed all classrooms for grades kindergarten through three and made recommendations to the teachers and Mrs. Pope. Mrs. Neely visited respondent's classroom on several occasions and observed the Respondent's treatment of students and her teaching methods. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan for the daily lesson, did not have a schedule to specify times for subjects to be taught, and did not have a based reading program as required by the board. When Mrs Neely attempted to counsel Respondent in order to assist her to correct these deficiencies, Respondent became hostile and argumentative. During one visit Mrs. Neely observed the Respondent chasing students around the classroom. At first Mrs. Neely assumed the conduct to be a game of some type. When the conduct continued for several minutes without interruption or comment from Respondent, Mrs. Neely realized that the class was out of control and that the Respondent was unable to restore order. Consequently, Mrs. Neely took charge and got the children into their seats. When she instructed the class to get quiet, Respondent also took her chair and refused to speak. Ultimately, Mrs. Neely taught the class for the remainder of the lesson. Respondent refused to cooperate with Mrs. Neely and did not correct the deficiencies in teaching and class management which Mrs. Neely observed. During a portion of October and November, 1988, Vincent Golden was assigned to Respondent's classroom to work as a teacher's aide. During the three weeks he was with Respondent's class, Mr. Golden observed Respondent on a daily basis. Twice during this period Respondent grabbed a student named Devon by the throat to reprimand inappropriate conduct. On another occasion Respondent grabbed a female student by the hair in order to chastise the student. In a fourth incident, Mr. Golden heard the Respondent instruct students in the class to chase down another student. This chase resulted after Respondent had thrown off her own shoes, failed at catching the student within the room, and had become frustrated the student bolted from the classroom. Mrs. Pope apprehended the errant student and Respondent's posse in the halls. During the fall of 1988, Mary Williams was employed as a systems aide at Fulford Elementary. On one occasion she observed two students outside of Respondent's classroom who were unable to open the door because Respondent and a student were holding it closed from the inside. One of the students was crying hysterically and was taken to the library to calm down. On a second occasion Respondent refused to allow a new student who was handicapped into her room. Mrs. Williams went to Respondent's classroom almost everyday to ask Respondent for her reading groups. It was Ms. Williams' responsibility to enter the reading group information into the school computer. Respondent refused to provide the reading group rosters. During the fall of 1988, Charles Mixon supervised a maintenance crew at Fulford Elementary. One day while Mr. Mixon was observing a crew mowing the lawn adjacent to Respondent's room, he saw Respondent shove two students out of the classroom. Mixon then overheard Respondent tell the students to fight outside if they wished to continue. The students were then left in the hall unsupervised. On another occasion Mr. Mixon overheard the Respondent tell a teacher to kiss her backside. Mr. Mixon watched Respondent make the comment as she pulled her dress halfway up. Lossie Jordan was an exceptional education teacher at Fulford Elementary during the 1988-89 school year. On one morning Ms. Jordan was in the office copying some materials when Respondent approached her and asked her if she had a squirrel for her. When Mrs. Jordan replied in the negative and asked Respondent why she would ask that, Respondent told her that a woman had come to her house the day before to tell her to ask Mrs. Jordan that question. No further explanation was offered by Respondent. A second incident occurred when Respondent entered Mrs. Jordan's classroom to drop students of for instruction. Mrs. Jordan was in the process of showing another teacher a new blouse she had bought. Upon entering, Respondent told the students that Mrs. Jordan was a thief and that she had stolen the new blouse. A third incident arose when Respondent, Mrs. Jordan and Mrs. Forbes, another teacher, were in the workroom waiting for the copy machine. Respondent was the third to center the room and when Mrs. Forbes told her that they were ahead of her to use the machine, Respondent shoved Mrs. Forbes against Mrs. Jordan who fell against the cabinets. Respondent then left the workroom. On still another occasion, Respondent told Mrs. Jordan to kiss her backside. On October 27, 1988, Mrs. Pope called Respondent into her office for a conference for the record. Mrs. Pope was concerned about the number of incidents which had been reported regarding Respondent's conduct. Mrs. Pope had also observed Respondent's class. During one observation Mrs. Pope watched a group of students who were sitting at a back table in Respondent's class. One student pulled another student's sweater and tied it behind his back so that the student could not use his hands. Mrs. Pope mentioned the problem to Respondent who advised her that since the student had gotten himself into the situation he would have to get himself out of it. On other occasions Mrs. Pope observed Respondent chasing students around the classroom. Respondent failed to properly supervise students in her classroom. As a result, Mrs. Pope was required to return students to Respondent's room after they wandered out into the school halls. Another unsupervised student got her arm caught in a chair and was brought to Mrs. Pope who had to contact Fire Rescue to release the child's arm. On November 2, 1988, Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to come to the office for a conference with a parent regarding allegations the parent's child had made. Respondent refused to meet with the parent. After directives from Mrs. Pope not to lock her classroom door, Respondent locked her door. After directing Respondent not to leave her class unsupervised, Mrs. Pope found Respondent's class unsupervised at least four times. Respondent had physical contact with students to administer discipline after Mrs. Pope directed her to refrain from such conduct. Respondent refused to accept a handicapped student after Mrs. Pope directed her to admit the child into her class. Following a number of the incidents described above, parents asked Mrs. Pope to remove their children from Respondent's class. Respondent's effectiveness was impaired by her behavior and her failure to properly supervise and instruct her class. Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to an employee assistance program. Ultimately, following a conference with Dr. Monroe, Dr. Poiret, a psychiatrist, performed a psychological assessment of Respondent. Following interviews with Respondent on November 22, 1988 and December 1, 1988, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to carry out her assigned responsibilities. Consequently, Respondent was relieved of her teaching duties and spent the remainder of the school year on leave. During the leave Respondent was to undergo individual psychotherapy on at least a weekly basis and to have a complete physical examination. Later, Dr. Monroe requested that Respondent submit documentation regarding her psychotherapy Respondent did not do so. In August, 1989, Dr. Poiret met with Respondent again to evaluate her ability to return to the classroom. As in the prior instances, Respondent continued to be hostile, noticeably irritable and angry. Since she had made no significant improvement, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to discharge her teaching duties due to a lack of emotional stability. Respondent repeatedly demonstrated a failure to effectively and efficiently manage the behavior of students assigned to her classroom. She failed to provide a curriculum of education to the students in her class, failed to communicate appropriately with her peer teachers and administrators who attempted to assist her, and failed to carry out her professional1 duties. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired. Respondent failed to take corrective measures to amend her deficiencies, failed to obey reasonable instructions given to her by the principal, and failed to present documentary evidence of her successful completion of therapy required to rehabilitate her for classroom duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from her employment with the public school district. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 21st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-7035 PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraphs 2 and 3 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4 and 6 accepted as addressed in paragraph 8, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 12 is accepted. As addressed in paragraph 5, paragraphs 13 through 15 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Except as addressed in paragraph 9, paragraph 16 is rejected as hearsay. Except as addressed in paragraphs 2 through 4, paragraphs 17,18, and 19 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 21 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. The first six sentences of Paragraph 23 are accepted. The balance is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 24 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 26 is accepted to the extent addressed in paragraph 6; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, recitation of testimony or argumentative. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Todate, Respondent has not submitted written or other evidences from a treating physician which would establish she is medically able to return to the classroom. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Irma Annette Butler Lowe 17350 N.W. 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 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
Findings Of Fact Annie Jackson, currently Principal of Golden Glades Elementary, also served in that capacity during Elijah McCray's 6th grade experience there during the regular 1984-1985 school year. On December 10, 1984, Mrs. Jackson personally removed Elijah from the lunch room for shooting paper at other students. He was reprimanded after a conference and sent to an alternative eating place for a month. On March 5, 1985 the classroom teacher referred Elijah to Mrs. Jackson for disruptive behavior, running around, not working and splashing water. He was removed from class and received a conference with Mrs. Jackson. Mrs. Jackson called the parents the next day and reported the situation. On March 27, 1985 he was referred to Mrs. Jackson for laughing at his teacher and being defiant. On March 28, 1985 he was assigned 3 days outside detention by Mrs. Jackson because he had refused to serve assigned detention. On April 2, 1985, which was the day Elijah was due to return, Mrs. Jackson wrote his parents because he had again been referred to the office and defied the authority of the teacher referring him by not carrying the referral to Mrs. Jackson's office. He was referred to the school counselor by Mrs. Jackson. There was a subsequent 5 day suspension for disruptive behavior scheduled to begin on April 15, 1985. At 5:00 P.M. on that day, Mrs. Jackson personally conducted a teacher/parent/ student/administrator conference to discuss the April 15, 1985/ suspension. Present in place of the parents were Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, Elijah's grandparents. The teacher made known to the grandparents that she did not want Elijah back in her class because he would throw items and deny it and frequently disrupt the class by spitting in the classroom or by leaving the classroom to spit. The grandparents made known to the teacher, and to Mrs. Jackson that a sinus condition of Elijah's required him to spit frequently and Mrs. Jackson apparently engineered some rapport between the teacher and Elijah upon this information so that the planned 5 days suspension was rescinded by Mrs. Jackson. Mrs. Taylor testified that she was present at this meeting but felt she had not participated because she had left most of the talking to Mr. Taylor and Mrs. Jackson, but upon Mrs. Jackson's and Mrs. Taylor's testimony together it is specifically found that this parent contact did occur. On April 17, 1985, Mrs. Jackson referred Elijah to the school counselor because of a report from his classroom teacher that Elijah had said he would "swing his old gun" at her. While this language by the teacher is technically hearsay outside the admission exception, information on the report was recorded contemporaneously by Mrs. Jackson in the school records and regardless of what was actually said to the teacher, Mrs. Jackson personally observed the distraught behavior of the teacher in reaction to whatever threat had been made by Elijah. Mrs. Jackson called school security as a result. The investigation of the incident by Mrs. Jackson and the security investigator revealed that the teacher had been told by other students that Elijah had shot a relative of theirs but that he had in fact never done so. Elijah was warned that it is serious to make threats to teachers. On April 22, 1985 Mrs. Jackson received a formal written request from the classroom teacher requesting Elijah's removal from her class. Much of Mrs. Jackson's testimony suggests that the persistent disruptive behavior was that of the classroom teacher who referred Elijah for what she perceived as threats. This teacher was not present to testify. Elijah was returned to class by Mrs. Jackson over the teacher's objections with a final warning concerning making threats. A parent/teacher/student/ administrator conference was held to apprise the parents that this was a last chance. It may be that Mrs. Taylor was not present for this conference, but Mrs. Jackson indicates at least one adult was present on behalf of the child. On April 25, 1985, Elijah was returned to class. On April 30, 1985, Mrs. Jackson requested Officer Harris of Operation Pro Volunteer Listener to confer with Elijah about the seriousness of making threats. On May 1, 1985, Mrs. Jackson investigated a report that Elijah had threatened two girls (Mirland Joseph and Lesley Compton) in his class with a knife. The girls gave statements which Mrs. Jackson synopsized as stating that they thought they had been threatened with a knife by Elijah. The statements are not signed. The incident as reported in the statements composed by the principal are by themselves hearsay and that hearsay is not confirmed or corroborated by a statement made by Elijah directly to Mrs. Jackson that he had showed the girls the point of a nail file attached to a man's pocket toenail clippers and was "just joking with it." Mrs. Jackson received a broken pair of blunt toenail clippers from Elijah at the time of this admission and a xerox copy of the nailclippers was admitted in evidence as a true and correct copy of the implement. Because of the presence of the nailclippers, which Mrs. Jackson characterized as a "pointed object", Mrs. Jackson initiated transfer of Elijah to an alternative education program. She felt this was a lesser alternative to expulsion. Expulsion would otherwise be required by School Board policy in the presence of a "weapon." Mrs. Taylor testified that she had heard one of the girls who had given statements to Mrs. Jackson or perhaps a third girl named "Alexandra" say they had made up the May 1, 1985 incident. Mrs. Taylor stated Elijah and his sister had told her the night before the May 1, 1985 incident that the two girls or Elizabeth Carpenter was going to "start a problem for him the next day" or "going to fight him" the next day. There is no record evidence of failing grades, truancies, or unexcused absences for Elijah.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Elijah McCray to the appropriate grade level in a regular school program with a different classroom teacher than previously assigned. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire Law Offices McCrary, Valentine & Mays P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Sylvia Taylor 2971 N. W. 165 Street Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk 1450 N. E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent's termination of employment as a teacher should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Since 1990, Cabrera has taught elementary school Spanish within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Cabrera began her career with Petitioner as a substitute teacher. In 1993 she was offered the first of several permanent postings. She has been assigned to Bel-Aire from 1996 to the date of her termination. At all times during which Cabrera 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 between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The same TADS evaluation procedures 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 to this case, TADS was used to evaluate Cabrera's performance. Miami-Dade County's TADS procedures include all of the statutorily required elements, and Cabrera 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 Bel-Aire through and including the 1998-99 school year, Cabrera's TADS evaluations were satisfactory. Notwithstanding her annual passing TADS scores, the evidence establishes that dealing with classroom discipline had never been Cabrera’s strong suit. Yet, for reasons not revealed in the record, Cabrera had never been in fear for her job, nor had her deficiencies in managing classroom discipline previously bothered administrators enough to cause them to take meaningful action to assist her, or get her out of the classroom. In the summer school session of 2000, Cabrera ran into especially difficult discipline problems from at least two students, and was dissatisfied with the level of support she received from her principal, Melvin Dennis (Dennis), in dealing with those students. Cabrera took the extraordinary step of going outside the school chain-of-command to complain to the central administration about what she perceived to be a lack of appropriate disciplinary support at the school level. On January 8, 2001, Cabrera received the first of that year’s formal TADS evaluations. The observer was assistant principal Dr. Barbara Moller (Moller). At that time, Moller found Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. More specifically, Moller found, among other things, that Cabrera’s lesson plans did not include a method for monitoring student progress; that she failed to maintain student’s attention and to redirect those students who were “off-task”; that Cabrera failed to provide instructional materials that were appropriate for her students; and that Cabrera failed to provide formal assessments of her students’ progress. A timely post-observation CFR was held to discuss the results of the January observation. At that time, Cabrera was advised that due to her unsatisfactory performance, she would be placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Also during the conference for the record, Respondent was given suggestions on how to improve her performance and correct her deficiencies in the form of written prescriptive activities appropriate to the noted deficiencies. The assistance provided to Cabrera included, but was not limited to: reviewing her lessons plans with the assistant principal; working with the Bilingual Department chairperson to formulate acceptable lesson plans; developing a behavior modification plan with the assistance of two fellow teachers and the school district’s instructional supervisor for bilingual education; and providing instructional materials, assessment devices, and commercially prepared tests. Also during the CFR, Cabrera was advised that at the conclusion of the 90 calendar-day performance probation period, a determination would be made as to whether the performance deficiencies identified during the probationary period have been satisfactorily corrected and that a recommendation by the school principal would be made to the Superintendent of Schools, which could lead to the termination of Respondent’s employment contract if performance deficiencies were not corrected. On February 22, 2001, a second TADS observation was conducted by Principal Dennis. At that time, Dennis deemed Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Dennis observed, among other things, that Cabrera’s class was disorganized. Students were not all in their seats and working within the type of orderly routine expected in a properly managed classroom. Cabrera continued to lack control over her class, as demonstrated by the fact that students were off task and Cabrera was unable to redirect them. Behavior problems may well have been exacerbated by her continued deficiency in techniques of instruction. Rather than tailor materials and instructional techniques to the differing needs of the students, Cabrera was observed to be deficient in this category because she used a rote style of presentation that was not appropriate to all students. In addition, Cabrera failed at this observation to use appropriate assessment techniques to determine how much of the lesson was being absorbed by students. As a result of Cabrera’s continuing unsatisfactory classroom performance, on February 28, 2001, Cabrera was again given formal written notice that she had been placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation status. She was further informed that, due to her unsatisfactory performance, her professional service contract may not be renewed and that her performance would continue to be monitored throughout her probationary period. On March 1, 2001, a post-observation conference was held with Cabrera to address the deficiencies noted in the formal classroom observation. At this time, Cabrera was again presented with a written prescription and a performance improvement plan in order to assist in correcting her deficiencies. In an effort to further assist Cabrera, on March 9, 2001, Dennis requested that the school district’s instructional supervisor for bilingual education visit Cabrera at the school for the purpose of assisting her in improving her performance deficiencies. The school principal also provided the assistance of staff members and teachers to help Cabrera in planning her lessons, developing a positive reinforcement and rewards system and on setting up her classroom in order to provide students with a positive learning environment. In a further effort to provide assistance, Cabrera was referred to the school district’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Cabrera was not required to take advantage of the EAP, and she did not do so. By spring, the strain of the probationary status was taking a visible toll on Cabrera, and the relationship between her and the Bel-Aire administration was fast becoming untenable. On March 27, 2001, Cabrera took her entire class to the main office to complain that she could not begin her lesson because her students did not have pencils. This childish bit of theater was met with an equally silly straight-faced memorandum issued to Cabrera advising that her responsibility for preparation and planning included assisting her students with having the appropriate supplies for class. Two days later, Cabrera was again formally observed in the classroom by Moller. During the formal classroom observation conducted on March 29, 2001, Moller found Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and in teacher-student relationships. Moller documented that Cabrera ignored or was unaware of her students’ inappropriate and disruptive behavior, that she did not provide feedback to students regarding the expected behavior in the classroom, and that she did not sequence the components of her lesson properly. On April 12, 2001, a post-observation conference was held with Cabrera to address the deficiencies noted in the March formal classroom observation. At this time she was again presented a written prescription and a performance improvement plan in order to assist in correcting her deficiencies. On April 18, 2001, the school district’s instructional supervisor for bilingual education met with Cabrera to assist her in correcting her performance deficiencies and offered Cabrera numerous suggestions on how to improve her classroom teaching performance. On May 3, 2001, Cabrera was again formally observed in the classroom by Principal Dennis. At that time, Dennis rated Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of classroom management and in techniques of instruction. Since a deficiency in even one TADS category, if not corrected within the 90-day period, requires termination, the fact that Cabrera had corrected two areas of deficiency identified in her January evaluation was not enough to save her job. Cabrera believes that she is being unfairly criticized for being unable to manage the behavior of students who, she claims, are beyond the ability of any teacher to manage. In her view, the students who disrupted her classroom “needed professional help, not from a teacher, but from someone else.” Cabrera testified, quite sincerely, that she did the best she could in terms of trying to fulfill her responsibility to create a orderly classroom in which learning could take place. She contends that the decision to place her on prescription in 2001 was an ambush. The evidence did establish that Petitioner’s knowledge of Cabrera’s shortcomings as a disciplinarian were well known at Bel-Aire long before the administration acted upon that knowledge. Cabrera argues that had she been given assistance, inside or outside the TADS process, long before she was, she could have improved her performance and saved her job. This argument requires the fact-finder to engage in impermissible speculation. While the evidence established that Cabrera was motivated to keep her job, complied with all recommended prescriptive activities and, in two out of the four categories in which she was determined by TADS observers to be deficient, had been able to elevate her performance to a passable level within the 90-day compliance period, it is impossible to know whether she could have remedied her deficiencies in the area of classroom discipline had she been forced to try years earlier. If Petitioner was inclined to overlook Cabrera's deficient classroom management prior to last year, Cabrera was similarly inclined to overlook unacceptable behavior in her students when it first manifested itself. In both cases, the willingness to accept sub-standard behavior worked to the detriment of all concerned. The most damaging testimony regarding Cabrera’s classroom management problems came not from School Board witnesses, but from Cabrera herself. She testified that it was her practice to give misbehaving children one or two months to “let them adjust. . . . Maybe they are not used to me. It’s an unfamiliar face. So I wait. Then, when I see that I get to the point where I just can’t take it . . . then that’s when I take action and I start writing referrals and start calling parents.” By that time, the evidence established, it was too late for Cabrera to exercise control over students whom she had allowed to ignore her. As a result of Cabrera’s unsatisfactory performance, on May 3, 2001, Dennis notified the Superintendent of Schools that Cabrera had not satisfactorily corrected her performance deficiencies during her 90 calendar-day performance probation period and recommended that Cabrera's employment be terminated. On May 16, 2001, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Cabrera's employment contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Cabrera's employment and denying her claim for reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2002, 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 3rd day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2200 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida, 33137 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Merritt R. Steirheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to make reasonable effort to protect a student's safety, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 646554 in the area of Mentally Handicapped. For the past six or seven years, Respondent has been employed as an ESE teacher at Windy Ridge. The record contains no evidence of prior discipline of Respondent's educator certificate, but the District suspended her for five days without pay for the three incidents that are described below. For the 2012-13 school year, Respondent and four paraprofessionals taught a class of seven ESE students. The paraprofessionals performed tasks assigned to them by Respondent. Absences on December 4, 2012, reduced the class to five ESE students, Respondent, and two of the four paraprofessionals regularly assigned to Respondent's classroom. The principal assigned a substitute for one of the two absent paraprofessionals, so four adults were supervising five students on that day. One of the five students present on December 4 was D.R., who was nine and one-half years old and suffered from a "significant cognitive disability." As documented by his Individual Educational Plan (IEP), which is dated November 6, 2012, D.R.'s mother was "very concerned" about the safety of her son, who was tube-fed, "non-verbal," and able to follow only "some simple one-step commands." The IEP warns that D.R. was in a "mouthing stage," meaning that he put "everything" in his mouth for sensory input. As described in his social/developmental history, which is dated November 1, 2012, D.R.'s health was "fragile." The three incidents at issue took place during approximately one hour at midday on December 4. The first incident took place at 11:10 a.m. Serena Perrino, a District behavior trainer, was sitting alone in Ms. Barnabei's classroom, which is next to Respondent's classroom. The two classrooms are joined by the two teachers' offices, so it is possible to walk between the classrooms without entering the hallway. On a break, Ms. Perrino had turned off the lights and was on the computer at the front of Ms. Barnabei's classroom. While facing the computer monitor, Ms. Perrino heard a noise behind her, turned around, and saw D.R., by himself, seated on the floor playing with a toy. Ms. Perrino knew that he belonged in Respondent's classroom. Without delay, Ms. Perrino walked D.R. toward his classroom, but, as they were passing through the teachers' offices, Ms. Perrino and D.R. encountered one of Respondent's paraprofessionals, who said that she was "just coming to get him, thanks." The second incident took place between 11:30 a.m. and noon. Bernadette Banagale, the substitute paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom on that day, was eating lunch in a small outside courtyard that is located at the end of the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. Ms. Banagale saw D.R., by himself, enter the courtyard from the doors at the end of the hallway. Ms. Banagale approached D.R. and, with some difficulty, walked him back to Respondent's classroom where she left him in the custody of the other two paraprofessionals, Susan Brown and Delta Porter, but not Respondent, who was not in the classroom when Ms. Banagale returned the child. The third incident took place shortly after noon. Cathy Zimmerman, a teacher, was sitting in a classroom eating lunch with another teacher. Looking out the window of the classroom, Ms. Zimmerman noticed D.R. in the adjoining breezeway, which divides the building from the school parking lot. Ms. Zimmerman did not know D.R., nor where he belonged, but she saw that he was unescorted. Approaching D.R. in the breezeway, Ms. Zimmerman guided him back through the doors leading to a hallway that, after a short distance, intersects the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. As she was walking the child into the building, Ms. Zimmerman directed the teacher with whom she had been having lunch to enter the nearest classroom to see if anyone could identify the child. As directed, the other teacher entered Ms. Barnabei's classroom, where she found Ms. Perrino, who again took custody of D.R. and immediately returned him to Respondent's classroom where Ms. Perrino found Respondent and one or more paraprofessionals. In an effort to prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R., Petitioner offered two pieces of evidence: during direct examination, the principal prescribed that a classroom teacher is required to know at all times the location of her students, and, during cross-examination, Respondent agreed with the metaphor supplied to her by Petitioner's counsel that a classroom teacher is the "captain of the ship." The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor constitute the entirety of Petitioner's explicit analysis of the reasonableness of Respondent's effort to protect D.R. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the first incident. The principal's testimony is inapt because Petitioner failed to prove that a paraprofessional did not always know D.R.'s location; that Respondent failed to protect D.R. when a paraprofessional knew his location, regardless of whether Respondent knew his location; and that D.R.'s safety was compromised at any time during the few seconds that he was in the adjoining classroom. Respondent's testimony is inapt because Petitioner did not prove that a paraprofessional failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety, which would be a pre-condition to attributing this failure to the captain of the ship, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the second incident. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape or at any time during his ensuing absence from the classroom and failed to prove that Respondent's absence from the classroom was unauthorized. As for the absence of Respondent from the classroom at the time of the escape in the second incident, the strongest evidence is Respondent's written statement to this effect. Other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement that she was not in the classroom at the time of the escape. Ms. Banagale's scheduled lunch was 11:30 a.m. to noon, and nothing in the record suggests that the substitute paraprofessional took her lunch at other than her scheduled time. The distance between the front door of Respondent's classroom and the exterior doors leading to the courtyard is the width of the single classroom that separates Respondent's classroom from these exterior doors, so it would not have taken D.R. long to travel from the front door of the classroom to the exterior doors leading to the courtyard. Respondent's scheduled lunch was 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., but Respondent testified that she was behind schedule when she took her lunch. She also testified that she returned to the classroom "a little after noon." Nothing in the record indicates how long Respondent took for lunch, but, if she took all of her allotted time, she likely left the classroom shortly after Ms. Banagale, leaving a very narrow window for D.R. to escape, if he were to do so after Ms. Banagale's departure, but before Respondent's departure--a fact that Petitioner has not established. The only evidence suggesting that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape comes from Respondent's testimony at the hearing to this effect. Notwithstanding the inculpatory nature of Respondent's testimony, it is impossible to credit it. Provided nearly two years after the incident, Respondent's testimony was, at times, confused and unclear, but her written statement is clear and straightforward. It would appear that, based on the findings below concerning the third incident, Respondent may have confused the second and third incidents. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the third incident. The third incident is more complicated than the first and second incidents because it is more difficult to determine exactly what Petitioner proved and the extent to which the material factual allegations extend to the proof of the third incident.2/ At minimum, Petitioner pleaded3/ and proved that D.R. escaped from the classroom, and Respondent was in the classroom at the time of the escape. Respondent gave a written statement admitting that she was present when D.R. left the classroom and that she was unaware of his departure "because my back was turned by me working with another student on the computer, [as D.R.] left out the rear door." At the hearing, Respondent testified confusingly, possibly suggesting that she was at lunch or in planning when D.R. escaped in connection with the third incident, but any such exculpatory testimony is discredited for the same reason that her inculpatory testimony regarding the second incident was rejected. As was true of the written statement in connection with the second incident, other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement in connection with the third incident. As noted in the discussion of the second incident, Respondent returned to the classroom "a little after noon." At this point, Respondent, Ms. Banagale, and Ms. Brown were in the classroom. Ms. Porter's scheduled lunch was from noon to 12:30 p.m., and nothing in the record suggests that she did not take her lunch as scheduled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, analysis of whether Respondent failed to meet a reasonableness standard may be facilitated by consideration of the burden of taking precautions sufficient to prevent an escape, the probability of an escape, and the magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety, if he escaped. The burden of taking additional precautions was not insubstantial. The classroom has three exits, and D.R. used each of them in connection with the three incidents. In the first incident, as noted above, D.R. used a side exit through the teachers' offices to get to the adjoining classroom of Ms. Barnabei. In the second incident, D.R. used the front door to get to the courtyard. In the third incident, D.R. used the rear door to access the adjoining breezeway, where Ms. Zimmerman found him no more than 75 feet from the rear door. Evidence suggests that locking the doors at each of these exits was forbidden, possibly due to fire regulations. Although three adults were supervising only five ESE students at the moment of D.R.'s escape in the third incident, the paraprofessional who normally taught D.R. one-on-one at the time of the escape was absent. It is not entirely clear how long Respondent was in the classroom before D.R. escaped, but Respondent was performing instructional duties at the moment of the escape, so additional attention by Respondent to security would have meant reduced instruction, at least of the child whom she was teaching one-on-one at the time of the escape; this adds to the burden of taking escape precautions.4/ The probability of D.R.'s escape was demonstrably very high, as evidenced by his three escapes in a single hour on December 4. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape is difficult to assess. D.R. was a medically fragile, highly vulnerable child. However, he suffered no injuries in any of the three escapes that are the subject of this case. The magnitude of the threat posed to D.R.'s safety from escaping was thus low. Considering that the burden of taking additional precautions was moderate, the probability of escape was high, and the magnitude of threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape was low, it is impossible to find that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety by preventing the escape in connection with the third incident. The analysis in the preceding paragraphs focuses on Respondent's failure at the moment of D.R.'s escape, not on the duration of his absence from the classroom and any ongoing failure to notice that the child was missing from the classroom. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner did not plead these failures as grounds for disciplining Respondent, but, in an abundance of caution, the following findings address these alternative grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety in connection with the third incident. There is no direct evidence of how long D.R. was out of the classroom in connection with the third incident. There is only one point in time established by direct evidence: Ms. Zimmerman first saw the child at 12:10 p.m. There is no direct evidence of when D.R. escaped from the classroom, nor could there have been such evidence from the known witnesses. Ms. Zimmerman's written statement notes that all of the physical education teachers, which may include her, were in the area of the breezeway from noon to 12:07 p.m., and they never saw D.R. Ms. Zimmerman's statement implies that someone would have seen D.R. if he had been anywhere in the breezeway by himself. Although Ms. Zimmerman could have estimated how long she had the child before turning him over to Ms. Perrino, no one asked her to do so.5/ And there is no other direct evidence of how long Ms. Zimmerman had the child. Based on the evidence cited in the preceding paragraph, D.R. escaped the classroom between 12:08 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. and returned to the classroom between 12:11 p.m. and 12:13 p.m. Limiting inferences to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the earliest that D.R. left the classroom was 12:09 p.m., and the latest that D.R. returned to the classroom was 12:11 p.m. This means that Petitioner has proved that D.R. was absent from the classroom for no more than two minutes: one minute by himself and one minute accompanied by Ms. Zimmerman. The burden of taking adequate precautions to detect the child's absence and return him to the safety of the classroom is lower than the burden of preventing the escape, which can occur in a few seconds, although it is difficult to assess what exactly would have been required of Respondent to conduct a search or, by notifying school administrators, to cause a search to be conducted. The burden of preventing an escape is much greater than the burden of noticing, within two minutes, that a child is missing from a five-student classroom. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety rises the longer that he is out of the classroom, especially unescorted. Presenting a closer case than the pleaded case involving only an escape, the claim that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort, when directed to the length of time that D.R. was out of the classroom, requires consideration of any effort that Respondent made during D.R.'s absence. The duration of D.R.'s absence is thus linked to whether Respondent noticed that D.R. was missing and, if so, what Respondent did upon discovering that he was gone. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, because inferences are limited to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing. There is no direct evidence that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing from the classroom. The record lacks admissions from Respondent and the two paraprofessionals in the classroom during the third incident that they were unaware of D.R.'s absence.6/ Both Ms. Zimmerman and Ms. Perrino testified that they did not see anyone in the vicinity of the classroom looking for D.R., and this testimony is credited, but supports no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom were not looking for the child, and does not support even an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom had failed to notice that D.R. was missing. Ms. Perrino testified that when she returned D.R. to the classroom, none of the adults present seemed to have realized that the child had been missing. This testimony is credited, but, lacks important detail, including on what this testimony is based and whether this observation applied to Respondent, so as to support no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults had not noticed that D.R. was missing. Thus, even if Petitioner has pleaded the duration of D.R.'s absence and a failure to notice the absence of the student as grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect his safety, Petitioner failed to prove these claims by clear and convincing evidence
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 1st day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an annual contract teacher with the Dade County Public Schools and holds a Florida state teacher's certificate. Although she had worked as a teacher assistant in the past, her first year of employment as a full time teacher was the 1980-81 school year. Since she is an annual contract teacher with no right to a continuing contract, the primary issue is whether she has the right to obtain back pay for the period of the school year during which she was suspended. Respondent was a teacher at Melrose Elementary School for the 1981-82 school year. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned to teach a Compensatory Education Class. These are small classes and, in Ms. Harper's case, never exceeded 11 students. She was, however, required to keep and retain student records to enable subsequent teachers to determine at what level the student was functioning. After Respondent was transferred from the Compensatory Education classroom, the assistant principal requested that she turn in the records for the class. Respondent stated that she had destroyed them. Respondent's next assignment at Melrose Elementary School was as the teacher of a fifth-sixth grade combination regular education class. The assistant principal officially observed Respondent in this classroom three times and unofficially observed her on additional occasions. She found that Respondent lacked effective instructional planning based on Respondent's failure to complete lesson plans. The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Respondent's union stated that lesson plans were an essential part of the teaching process and a proper subject for evaluation. On one occasion, the school was preparing for an audit. Auditors (administrators from other schools) check teacher's plan books, grade books and other teaching materials. The assistant principal contacted Respondent several times in advance of the audit in an attempt to prepare her for it. However, Respondent failed to develop the required lesson plans, so the assistant principal wrote out a week's plans for her. She asked Respondent to take the plans home over the weekend and copy them in her own handwriting. The following Monday at the beginning of the audit, Respondent had only filled out plans for Monday, Tuesday and Friday. There were no lesson-plans to be delivered to the auditors regarding Wednesday or Thursday. Testimony of Respondent's supervisor established that she was unable to control the students in her classroom, primarily because she did not assign them anything to do. A Furthermore, she sent her students out to play without supervision and left her classroom unattended on several occasions, even though she had previously been instructed by her supervisor not to do so. Respondent received an unacceptable performance rating in the area of "techniques of instruction". This rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not pre-test her students and therefore had no knowledge of what the student did or did not know, what he needed to be taught or where to place him in the classroom. As a result, she attempted to teach students division when those students had not yet mastered prerequisite skills. She did not divide her class into ability groups so that she could teach groups of students at their levels of comprehension, and she did not maintain student profiles which would have shown her a particular student's abilities and deficiencies. Respondent either did not assign homework to her students or they did not return it because she had no records to indicate such assignment or files containing student homework. Her records of student grades were incomplete and only sporadically maintained. In the spring of 1982, two students from Respondent's class ran into the principal's office crying. The female student had welts on her chest and face; and the male student had similar injuries to his arms. These injuries were the result of an attack by Respondent. She had not been authorized to administer corporal punishment by her supervisor. Although there was another incident where Respondent chased a student with a ruler, this was the only situation in her teaching career where her loss of control had serious consequences. She appears to regret this incident. Ms. Harper was reassigned to South Hialeah Elementary School for the school year 1982-83. When she reported to South Hialeah Elementary School on September 20, 1982, she was given a lesson plan format, a teacher handbook and other pertinent teaching materials. Respondent received a two day orientation during which she was permitted to read the handbook, observe other teachers and talk with the grade level chairman. She was given instruction in writing lesson plans in the format used throughout the county and required by the UTD-School Board contract. She was then assigned a regular fourth grade classroom. On her second day of teaching, the assistant principal noted an unacceptable noise level emanating from Respondent's classroom during the announcement period. When she walked into the room, she found Respondent preparing her lesson plans with the students out of control. The assistant principal advised Respondent that this was not the proper time to prepare lesson plans. The next day the situation was the same, and fights broke out between students. The assistant principal was concerned for the safety of these students because of the fights and because Ms. Harper's classroom was on the second floor and students were leaning out of the windows. On October 4, 1982, the assistant principal conducted a formal evaluation of Respondent's classroom teaching, and initially found Respondent preparing lesson plans and not instructing or supervising her students. During the reading lesson, Respondent did not give individual directions to the students, but merely told them all to open their books to a particular page. Since the students were not all working in the same book because they were functioning at different levels of achievement, this created confusion. Finally, the students who had the same book as Respondent were instructed to read, while other students did nothing. After a brief period of instruction, the class was told to go to the bathroom even though this was the middle of the reading lesson and not an appropriate time for such a break. The assistant principal noted that Respondent did not have a classroom schedule or rules. The classroom was in constant confusion and Respondent repeatedly screamed at the children in unsuccessful attempts to maintain order. The assistant principal determined that these problems had to be addressed immediately. Accordingly, in addition to a regular long term prescription, she gave Respondent a list of short term objectives to accomplish within the next two days. These objectives consisted of the development of lesson plans and a schedule, arranging a more effective floor plan in the classroom, making provisions for participation by all of the students and developing a set of classroom rules. The assistant principal advised Respondent that if she had any difficulty accomplishing these objectives, she should contact her immediately. The short term objectives were never accomplished. Respondent did not develop classroom rules. Although the assistant principal and other teachers attempted to teach her to write lesson plans, this was relatively unsuccessful. The principal observed the classroom on October 6, and found that no improvements had been made. She also noted that Respondent had not complied with the outline for lesson plans required by the contract between the UTD and the School Board. Neither had she complied with the school's requirements for pupil progression forms. The principal advised Respondent to attempt once again to work on the short term prescription assigned on October 4, 1982. Subsequent observations and assistance did not result in any noticeable improvement. Respondent was unable to understand the need for organizing students in groups according to their abilities. Her students continued to wander aimlessly about the classroom. She was unable to document required student information even after repeated demonstrations. She did not test students and she failed to record their grades, except sporadically. Other teachers and parents complained about classroom conduct. Some parents requested that their children be moved out of Ms. Harper's class. Others complained to school officials about telephone calls from Ms. Harper at 2:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. Even the school custodian complained because Respondent's students repeatedly threw papers out of the windows. The principal arranged for Respondent to meet with the grade-level chairman and the assistant principal to learn to develop lesson plans. She obtained information about classes at the Teacher Education Center of Florida International University and directed Ms. Harper to attend the classes. She subsequently determined that Respondent had not attended. Respondent told the principal that she could not attend because of car trouble. At the hearing, Respondent stated that not only did she have car trouble, but since she was a single parent, she lacked the time and money to attend the classes. She conceded, however, that the classes were free. In a further effort to assist her, Respondent was excused from her regular classroom duties to observe successful teachers. On one occasion she was found taking a coffee break instead. Again, there was no improvement apparent from this remedial measure. At the principal's request, the School Board's area director observed Respondent on November 11, 1982. Her testimony established that Respondent worked with only one group of three students in the classroom and that the reading lesson being taught to those children was below their appropriate level. She also observed that there were no records indicating the progress of Respondent's students and that the students were talking continually. Due to her numerous difficulties in teaching and the lack of progress in correcting the deficiencies, the principal, assistant principal and area director concluded that Respondent lacked the requisite competence to continue in her contract position. A recommendation of dismissal to the School Board followed and on January 5, 1983, Respondent was suspended. After her suspension, Respondent secured employment as a teacher of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) at the Tri-City Community Association. Testimony of its director established that Respondent is an effective teacher of ESOL and that she trains other teachers to perform this function.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from her position as a contract teacher effective January 5, 1983. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ellen Leesfield, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c) and (g), Florida Statutes (2010), as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 806958, covering the areas of elementary education and primary education, which is valid through June 30, 2015. Respondent holds a bachelor’s degree in mass communications, a master’s degree in early education, and a post- graduate degree in early Montessori education. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Hyde Park Elementary School (Hyde Park) and Gregory Drive Elementary School (Gregory Drive) in the Duval County School District (DCSD). Respondent received performance evaluations that her supervisors characterized as unsatisfactory for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. For the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent taught first grade at Hyde Park. She had taught at Hyde Park since the 2008- 2009 school year. Her evaluations both at Hyde Park and John Ford Elementary prior to the 2009-2010 school year all reflect satisfactory, high performing, or outstanding ratings on individual rating criteria. For each year where an evaluation was included in Respondent’s Exhibit 8, the overall rating was satisfactory. The principal at Hyde Park for the 2009-2010 school year was Angela Kasper. The 2009-2010 school year was Ms. Kasper’s first year as principal of Hyde Park, although she had been a principal at another school previously. When Ms. Kasper came to Hyde Park, the school was considered an “A” school. It is now a “D” school. Hyde Park is in an area of town known for gang violence and declining neighborhoods. Ms. Kasper was responsible for evaluating Respondent. She performed multiple classroom observations, including observations on September 23, 2009; January 19, 2010; and February 26, 2010. The assistant principal, Ronrica Troy, also performed an observation on March 19, 2010. A Teacher Assessment Instrument (TAI) is used to record the results of an observation and must be discussed with the teacher following the observation. The TAI lists Competencies A-I, with varying numbers of “indicators” under each competency. The evaluator checks those competencies that are demonstrated during an observation, and on the second page of the document, circles those competencies that have not been demonstrated sufficiently. However, there is no standard as to how many items needed to be checked in order for a teacher’s performance to be considered satisfactory. Regardless of the number checked, the ultimate determination of sufficiency was within the discretion of the rating principal. Not all competencies can be demonstrated during the observation itself. The Teacher Assessment Manuals for both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 years recognize this fact. Both say: The TAI is also designed to measure and document possession of important skills and professional behaviors that may not be readily observable in the classroom setting. The instrument is designed to facilitate assessment of classroom performance and other teacher characteristics, which are linked to effective student instruction. The instructions to supervisors recognize this TAI feature. For each year at issue, the instructions to principals/supervisors included the following: Conduct the observation using the TAI. All competency indicators that are observed during this observation will be checked on the TAI. Complete the TAI for all competencies/indicators not completed during the classroom observation. After the instrument has been completed, review and rate the data, and prepare the report to share with the employee. The TAI for the September 23, 2009, observation indicated that all competencies are satisfactory except (A) promote student growth and performance; (B) evaluate instructional needs of students; (C) plan and deliver effective instruction; (D) show knowledge of subject matter; and (E) utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline. On September 28, 2009, Ms. Kasper issued Respondent a Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Performance advising her that she must improve in the following areas or she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year: (A) promote student growth and performance; (B) evaluate instructional needs of students; (C) plan and deliver effective instruction; (D) show knowledge of subject matter; and (E) utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline. On or about October 26, 2009, a Success Plan was created and a Success Plan Team was established for Respondent. The Success Plan team (consisting of Ms. Kasper, Assistant Principal Ronrica Troy, and Iris Burton) met with Ms. Burney on October 26, 2009; November 17, 2009; November 23, 2009; January 22, 2010; and March 17, 2010. Several strategies for improvement were included in the Success Plan. Tasks (referenced as “strategies”) included in the Success Plan were as follows: Competency A: Promote Student Growth and Performance Develop lesson plans for all content areas that demonstrate differentiated instructional practices based on student needs as determined by the principal. Plans must be current, available at all times, connected and reflect strategies that are based on Sunshine State Standards and the DCPS-Learning Schedule Maintain Data Notebook with evidence of on-going usage for lesson development and tracking/disaggregating for individual student progress Implement, with a mentor, a breakdown of grading criteria with a variety of components (ex: classwork, homework, participation, projects, tests) Provide evidence that grading is accurate and based on a sufficient number and variety of learning tasks Competency B: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students: Create, maintain and keep current student portfolios that include multiple sources of student work that document student progress toward the standard as determined by the Principal. Assessments/data will be organized in Data Notebook and accessible during instructional time and utilized to drive lesson development (Collected data should include current: Reading, Math and Science Monitoring Forms, PMP, Safety Net tracking, DRA2, FAIR reports, running records, Scrimmage reports, emergent reader checklist, writing profiles, and Data from Riverdeep Destinations Reading/Math) Communicate individual progress with students through parent conferences with feedback from mentor. Consistently modify instruction based on assessed student performance as determined by the principal. Competency C: Plans and Delivers Effective Instruction Utilize guided questions in the delivery of instruction for all content areas to focus learning expectations, higher level thinking and understanding – questions will be highlighted in lesson plans and posted during delivery of specific content area subject matter. Read America’s Choice, “Independent Reading, Phonemic Awareness and Phonics, Writing Planning Mini-Lessons, & Conferencing/Revising Monographs Series” as a review on how to effectively deliver the workshop models in all content areas and meet with principal to discuss findings. The lesson plans will always include beginning/ending review, clearly defined learning task, specific learning expectations, corrective feedback and clarification (The Workshop Model) and the use of the Learning Schedule. The lesson presentation will demonstrate the appropriate choice of learning activities, strategies and developmentally appropriate assignments/materials that are used as they relate to student’s needs. Observe mentor and other grade level teachers in the workshop model. Consistently implement strategies learned from them. Competency D: Shows Outstanding Knowledge of Subject Matter: Read Professional books/articles readings to become more familiar with best practices (ex: planning, effective instructional delivery, differential instruction, or the workshop model (ex: Harry Wong, or Diane Heacox) Use feedback from announced and unannounced visits using various feedback forms such as TAI, FPMS, Look-Fors, and Classroom Walkthrough instruments to modify and adjust delivery if needed. Participate in Guided Reading and Differentiated Instruction workshops, and create a Classroom Instruction Plan on how you will implement what was learned. Use content area Look-For while reviewing videotaped/audiotape lessons of yourself (content area to be determined) and meet with Principal to discuss your findings. Competency E: Utilizes Appropriate Classroom Management Techniques: Develop Classroom Management Plan that addresses appropriate behavior and submit classroom management plan to Principal and make adjustments based on feedback Review list of interventions from, The Teacher’s Encyclopedia of Behavior Management by Randy Sprick, to apply age appropriate behavior management strategies for the management of student (positive and negative) behavior. Submit list to principal and make adjustments based on feedback, upon approval interventions should consistently be used in the management of student behavior. Develop, post, and follow daily class schedule to assist in effectively keeping students on task, stopping misconduct, using instructional time effectively, and maintaining instructional momentum. Demonstrate consistent and effective classroom management techniques as measured by TAI, announced and unannounced Classroom Walk-Throughs, and FPMS Behavior Management Domain 2.0 as determined by the principal. Consistently maintain a neat, clean, and organized classroom. Note: Classroom appearance and organization will be monitored during Formal, Informal observations and Classroom Walk-Throughs. Develop and implement CHAMPS activity/transition protocol with mentor. Observe mentor and other teacher’s rituals and routines. Consistently implement per Principal’s satisfaction. Ms. Burney cooperated fully with the Success Plan process. Out of this somewhat daunting list of strategies, there were only two that Ms. Kasper indicated were not completed: under Competency B, the requirement to “create, maintain and keep current student portfolios that include multiple sources of student work that document student progress toward the standard as determined by the principal”;1/ and under Competency C, “to consistently modify instruction based on assessed student performance as determined by the principal.” Ms. Kasper stated that she did not see student portfolios during a subsequent observation, but gave no real explanation for her conclusion regarding the second area achieved. As an overall result, at the conclusion of the Success Plan, it is indicated that the plan has been successfully completed but that the competencies have not been successfully demonstrated. During the Success Plan process, Ms. Kasper testified that she communicated with Ms. Burney about her progress and how she could improve. However, the nature of the communication is somewhat suspect. For example, Ms. Kasper verbally reprimanded Ms. Burney for failing to have her lesson plans on her desk at all times. In December, Ms. Burney had an extended absence due to illness and was out of school from approximately December 1 through December 11. On December 11, 2009, Ms. Kasper issued a formal letter of reprimand to Ms. Burney, stating: On October 2, 2009, I verbally reprimanded you for reporting to work unprepared to teach your students. Lesson plans were to be on your desk at all times and you were to have emergency plans with the bookkeeper. To review the events as of today, December 7, 2009, you have not provided emergency plans to the bookkeeper and lesson plans were not available today when a substitute was called in for you at the last minute. Later in the morning the bookkeeper checked her email and you did send in plans but it was too late to get them to the substitute. She had other duties that kept her away from checking her email . . . . Your failure to leave adequate lesson plans for substitute personnel is neglect of your professional responsibilities as a classroom teacher and will not be tolerated. Your first responsibility is to your students and their education. If you find yourself incapable of currently meeting this responsibility for whatever reason I would encourage you to consider taking a personal leave until matters in your personal life are resolved to the extent that they no longer interfere with your teaching responsibilities . . . . Respondent responded to the reprimand, stating: I respectfully rebut the letter of December 11, 2009 from Angela Kasper, Principal. The Step II of the Progressive Discipline Plan states “Unprepared for Students.” I unequivocally state that I met my professional responsibilities and commitments as an educator during my absence of 12/1 to 12/11. The dates and occurrences of unpreparedness that are outlined in the disciplinary letter can be refuted by my attainment of the Kelly Services call logs, my lesson plans, and emails. According to my grade level chairperson, the only occasion when the lesson plans were not available was when the Duval County School Board computers were down for the morning. The lesson plans had been sent by email the previous evening. At no time, was my grade level team responsible for providing substitute plans. Admittedly, as Mrs. Kasper stated in her letter, my lesson plans were not prepared one week in advance. However, the first week of my absence, against doctor’s advice, I went before school to set up the activities, tab the teacher editions, and provide detailed lesson plans and schedule. After the first week, all lesson plans were written and emailed the night before in preparation for the substitute. Ms. Kasper admitted at hearing that she never checked the Kelly Service call logs, did not look at the lesson plan sent to the bookkeeper, and did not recall if the school board computers were down that morning. She did not check to verify whether the computers had gone down, and acknowledged that they sometimes do. Despite this, she used the reprimand in preparing Respondent’s evaluation. On January 19, 2010, Ms. Kasper conducted a second formal evaluation. As a result of this observation, Ms. Kasper felt that Ms. Burney still needed improvement in Competencies A, B, C, and D. Ms. Burney provided a post-observation reflection in which she acknowledged that she was also disappointed in the lesson, stating in part that the directions she gave the students were inadequate, and that students who were “pulled” from the lesson for reading support left other students without partners and caused further confusion. Respondent indicated that she retaught the lesson with much improved results. Ms. Kasper, however, did not see the lesson as retaught. A third observation was conducted on February 26, 2010. For this observation, Ms. Kasper was concerned that the lesson taught was not on the learning schedule for that time period. However, the learning schedule was not provided and she did not indicate when the lesson should have been taught. Nor does it appear that she raised this issue with Ms. Burney during the pre- observation conference. Ms. Burney’s pre-observation notes indicated that she was teaching the lesson based on classroom activities focusing on everyday problems and the solutions the children were offering. Ms. Kasper did not explain why teaching the lesson was inappropriate if the teacher felt the students would benefit. Ms. Kasper felt that Respondent was improving in Competency C, but not enough to be successful. Finally, on March 19, 2010, Ms. Troy conducted an observation in Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Kasper asked her to do so in order to get a different viewpoint. Ms. Troy found Competencies A, B, and C to be deficient. There were some inconsistencies between Ms. Troy’s assessment of Respondent regarding her available documentation and the determination in the Success Plan that Respondent had completed the documentation within days of the observation. For example, the Success Plan indicated that Respondent had achieved almost all of the indicators in Competency A within five days of the evaluation, whereas Ms. Troy indicated that she saw none of them. The same can be said with respect to the data notebook and other indicators under Competency B. Ms. Kasper acknowledged that she did not talk to Ms. Troy about the documentation examined for the Success Plan, and also acknowledged that many of the things identified on the TAI are not observable based on looking at a teacher teaching in the classroom. Instead, consistent with the Teacher Assessment Manual, they have to be checked off after reviewing the materials maintained by the teacher. For example, whether a teacher is interpreting data or using it for individual diagnoses, or plans instruction based on diagnosed student needs, cannot be determined simply by observing the teacher. Student data would have to be examined. Ms. Kasper also admitted at hearing that for much of her testimony she was simply reading her notes and that her memory of events was not entirely clear. Further, and more importantly, she acknowledged that some of her notes and comments regarding Ms. Burney’s observations were more reflective of Ms. Kasper’s personal preferences about the way things should be done, such as writing center names on the board rather than in a chart; having lesson plans on the desk instead of behind or in the desk; and having book bags on the back of student chairs, as opposed to somewhere else. Some of her preferences were what she viewed as “best practices.” “Best practices” are not part of any stated rules or standards. As a result, it is difficult to know how much of her evaluation of Ms. Burney was a result of her personal preferences as opposed to any district expectation. On or about March 26, 2010, Ms. Kasper prepared an evaluation of professional growth for the 2009-2010 school year, which reflected an overall unsatisfactory rating. The evaluation indicated a satisfactory score in Competencies E through I; a needs improvement for Competencies A and D, and an unsatisfactory in Competencies B and C. The unsatisfactory scores resulted in negative points (two each), which resulted in an overall evaluation score of -4.00. In accordance with the Teacher Assessment Instrument used by the DCSD, this score resulted in an unsatisfactory evaluation. At the time of Respondent’s evaluation, results from the FCAT had not been received. Petitioner did not present evidence regarding what, if any advancement the students in Ms. Burney’s class made during the year they were in her class. Teachers who receive an unsatisfactory evaluation have the option to remain at the school where they received the evaluation or to transfer to another school. Respondent opted to transfer to another school, and was transferred to Gregory Drive Elementary School for the 2010-2011 school year to teach kindergarten. Andrea Williams-Scott is the principal at Gregory Drive. She has been with the DCSD for 18 years, and is in her sixth year as principal at Gregory Drive. At the time Respondent came to the school, Ms. Williams-Scott was in her third year as principal. Ms. Williams-Scott knew when Ms. Burney came to Gregory Drive that she transferred based upon a prior unsatisfactory evaluation. She reviewed the prior Success Plan but did not review the evaluations from the previous year. Instead, she met with Ms. Burney at the beginning of the year, and told her that she would conduct an observation within the first 30 days she was there, and they would go from there. Ms. Williams-Scott conducted a formal observation on September 17, 2010. She did not see any indicators for Competencies A and B; thought the mini lesson was too long; and that the picture used for a picture walk was too small for the children to see. The essential question for the lesson was posted, but not really reviewed with the children. However, Ms. Burney did a good job of explaining content to the children, and one child was able to restate the concepts perfectly. While Ms. Burney used CHAMPS, the district-wide class management model, Ms. Williams-Scott felt the classroom management was inconsistent. As a result of the observation, Ms. Williams-Scott found that Ms. Burney needed improvement in Competencies A-E. A Success Plan was created for Respondent for the 2010- 2011 school year on or about October 1, 2010. Initially, Respondent appeared reluctant to participate in the Success Plan, but was more responsive as the year progressed. Once again, the Success Plan strategies are extensive. They include: Competency A: Promotes Student Growth: Establish classroom Safety Nets for children in the academic area of reading, math, and writing Monitor and track students’ progress in meeting kindergarten standards for all subject areas Create and maintain a data notebook that shows evidence that there is continuous use of data to develop and implement lessons that will insure student growth. Notebook needs to be in place by October 22, 2010. Data in notebook should be dated and include data gathered from DRAs, running records, guided reading, FAIR, Destinations Success for reading and math, EnVisions/Math Investigations assessments, conferencing note, anecdotal notes and PMP’s. Implement and maintain an accurate grade book including a breakdown of grading criteria with a variety of components and the next steps for student instruction beginning on October 22, 2010. Competency B: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students Create and use rubrics for formal and informal assessments to track students’ progress and assist in developing personal plans for re-teaching and mastery. This data will be reviewed monthly at each monitoring meeting. Match assessments to curriculum and standards as evidenced in lesson plans that you will create with mentor (reading) and Math Coach (math). Lesson plans (including differentiation for student needs, guided reading and guided math) are due to Mrs. Williams-Scott via email each Monday by 7:50 a.m. Create and maintain student portfolios with a variety of up-to-date student work that documents student progress towards meeting the standard as determined by the principal. Competency C: Plans and Delivers Effective Instruction Review content/performance standards, curricula expectations with mentor and math coach. Observe mentor/Math Coach conduct a lesson in your classroom. Debrief with the mentor/coach after the lesson(s) have been taught. Employ all strategies discussed in debriefing in daily instruction of students. Participate in the planning of all lessons modeled in your classroom. Co-teach lessons with mentor/math coach. Debrief with the mentor/coach after the lesson. Employ all strategies discussed in debriefing in daily instruction of students. Participate in the planning of all lessons modeled in your classroom. List and review with students essential questions for subjects taught with class daily. Write lesson plans that follow the workshop model. The components that the lesson plan should include are: Sunshine State Standard(s), essential question, mini-lesson, work-time, closing. The presentation of the content in a lesson will demonstrate the use of developmentally appropriate learning activities, strategies, and materials for use in differentiated in centers and small group activities. Teach lessons that are observed by the mentor/math coach. Debrief with the mentor/coach after the lesson(s) have been taught. Employ all strategies discussed in debriefing in daily instruction of students. Competency D: Shows Outstanding Knowledge of Subject Matter Read professional books/articles given to you by members of the support team to become familiar with best practices. After reading articles, discuss with the member of the support team your findings and questions from the article. Implement newly found strategies in your classroom after the debrief. Use feedback from all classroom visits to modify delivery of instruction to children. Participate in grade-level specific Coaching Cycle. Implement strategies covered in Coaching Cycles for your classroom. Competency E: Utilizes Appropriate Classroom Management Techniques Implement CHAMPS daily in your classroom. Read professional books/articles given to you by the support team to become familiar with effective classroom management techniques. After reading articles, discuss with a member of the support team your findings and questions from the article. Implement newly found strategies in your classroom. Post and follow classroom schedule daily to assist in effectively using instructional time and maintaining instructional focus and momentum. Develop a plan for dealing with students’ misconduct. Submit a classroom management plan. After final approval, demonstrate effective classroom management techniques in all classroom observations. Consistently maintain an organized classroom that is free from clutter and neat. Please note: Classroom appearance will be monitored via all classroom walkthroughs and formal/informal observations. Observe mentor/math coach’s classroom management techniques during model lessons. Debrief about effective classroom management behaviors observed. Implement strategies discussed in debrief. Competency F: Shows Sensitivity to Student Needs by Maintaining Positive School Environment Establish classroom rules that all children have to follow. Read and discuss the Code of Ethics with an administrator. Videotape yourself teaching a lesson. Watch the lesson and debrief with mentor. Later in the process, videotape lesson and review with mentor. Note improvements from initial video in a written reflection. Identify appropriate/negative consequences for behavior. Submit plan to an administrator. Once plan has been approved, implement the plan daily. All of these strategies were completed with the exception of three: under Competency A, “monitor and track students’ progress in meeting kindergarten standards for all subject areas”; under Competency B, “create and use rubrics for formal and informal assessments to track students’ progress”; and under Competency C, “teach lessons that are observed by the mentor/math coach. Debrief with the mentor/math coach after the lesson(s) have been taught.” With respect to the rubrics, Ms. Burney completed them but did not bring them to the Success Plan meeting for review, because of the amount of materials she was trying to bring to the media center for the meeting. When Respondent requested permission to return to her classroom to get them, she was not allowed to do so. With respect to the strategy in Competency A, Ms. Burney had DRAs, running records, and guided readings, but the documents the kindergarten teachers were using as a team were not present. While the final version of the Success Plan indicates she did not teach lessons that were observed by the mentor/math coach, debrief afterward and employ strategies discussed in the debrief, Ms. Hammette testified that she did in fact observe lessons that Ms. Burney taught and debriefed with her, and that Ms. Kannada did the same. Ms. Williams-Scott did not explain why this strategy was not met. On October 28, 2010, Ms. Williams-Scott conducted a second formal evaluation of Ms. Burney. She noted no indicators as being seen in Competencies A or B. Several indicators were checked for Competency E; all were checked for Competencies D and G; half were checked for Competencies C, F, and H; and all but one for I. The TAI included several positive comments, as well as some negative ones. Most importantly, on the second page of the TAI where deficient areas are usually circled, Ms. Williams- Scott circled nothing. Her failure to circle any deficiencies was not based upon a belief that Ms. Burney had vastly improved her performance, but rather because, since a Success Plan was in place, she felt it to be unnecessary. Standing alone, however, there was no indication on the TAI that would provide to Ms. Burney an indication that her performance had or had not improved since the prior observation, and Ms. Williams-Scott testified that evaluations are based on observations, not completion of the Success Plan. While Ms. Williams-Scott thought circling the deficient competencies to be unnecessary because a Success Plan was already in place, Ms. Kasper testified that it was important to circle competencies needing improvement so that a teacher has notice of the areas that need to improve, and that it is “absolutely critical for this evaluation process.” Ms. Kasper’s testimony on this point is credited. On January 12, 2011, Ms. Williams-Scott conducted another formal observation. Under Competency A of the TAI, she checked the indicator that Ms. Burney “integrates student performance into lesson plan,” but no other indicators were checked. Notes by Ms. Williams-Scott stated that math data was insufficient, with no groups for individual instruction, and that inventories were not complete at all intervals for all students. No indicators were checked for Competency B. About half were checked for Competency C, and as was the case for the prior observation, there were both positive and negative remarks on the form. All indicators were checked for Competencies D, F, G, and I, most for Competency E, and one out of two for Competency H. Once again, no areas were circled as not being satisfactory on the second page. On or about January 14, 2011, Ms. Williams-Scott issued to Respondent a Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Performance advising Respondent that she must improve prior to the date of her final evaluation or she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year. The Notice advised Respondent that she needed to show improvement in the following areas: (A) Promote Student Growth and Performance; (B) Evaluate Instructional Needs of Students; (C) Plan and Deliver Effective Instruction; (D) Show Knowledge of Subject Matter; (E) Utilize Appropriate Classroom Management Techniques, Including the Ability to Maintain Appropriate Discipline; and (F) Show Sensitivity to Student Needs by Maintaining a Positive School Environment. Given the number of indicators checked for Competencies D, E, and F, and to some extent Competency C on the previous two TAI’s, their listing on the Notice seems unsupported. Ms. Burney signed the Notice but stated that she did not agree with it. Finally, on March 22, 2011, Ms. Williams-Scott conducted another formal observation. Two indicators of five were checked for Competency A, with a note that there was a lack of documentation of student growth. One indicator, “uses multiple assessment techniques,” was checked for Competency B, with the note that running records were present for some students (but presumably not for all). Half of the indicators were marked for Competency C, all for Competency D, G, and I, most for Competency E, all but one for Competency F, and one of two for Competency H. Like the two previous TAI’s, no competencies were circled as deficient on the second page. Ms. Williams-Scott prepared an evaluation of professional growth for Respondent and concluded that for the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent had achieved an unsatisfactory rating. She was rated as unsatisfactory for Competencies A and B, needs improvement for Competency C, and satisfactory for all other competencies. Consistent with the scoring required by the Teacher Assessment System in place for the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Burney received a score of -5.00, which resulted in an overall score of unsatisfactory. As was the case with the Hyde Park evaluation by Ms. Kasper, there was no consideration of FCAT scores or other statewide testing when Ms. Williams-Scott evaluated Ms. Burney. On or about May 10, 2011, Ed Pratt-Daniels, Superintendent of Schools for Duval County School District, wrote to Respondent advising her that she would be discharged as a teacher with the DCSD, and providing her with information regarding her right to request a hearing with respect to her termination. Respondent elected not to request a hearing and on July 27, 2011, signed an irrevocable letter of resignation as an employee of the DCSD. Teachers who worked with Ms. Burney described her as a very dedicated teacher who worked hard, came in early, and stayed late. She tutored students both through a tutoring company and on her own time, often did extra things for her students and developed positive relationships with them. One teacher who taught special education students in Ms. Burney’s classroom described her as having a special gift for bringing lessons down to the children’s level, and did not see a problem with her teaching style. After careful review of the evidence as a whole, the problems with Respondent’s performance stem not from incompetency, but from a failure to adhere to the mandates of current educational theory based in large part on data collection, maintenance, and analysis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that she be placed on probation for a period of two years, and that as a condition of probation, she be required to take six semester hours of college-level courses in areas determined appropriate by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 22nd day of August, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent's continuing contract of employment with the Petitioner should be terminated for incompetency or for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as an elementary school classroom teacher pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. Respondent is 57 years of age and has been a classroom teacher for a total of 29 years. She began working for Petitioner during the 1975-76 school year and has worked under a continuing contract since August 1980. Prior to that time, she was a classroom teacher in Winter Park, Florida. In 1980, Respondent's principal observed that Respondent was habitually tardy at the work site and had difficulty accepting criticism. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent's principal found Respondent to be deficient in classroom management, student-teacher relationships, instructional techniques, and supportive characteristics. Efforts to have Respondent correct these deficiencies were unsuccessful. A prescription of assigned activities was developed in an effort to help Respondent to correct these deficiencies. Respondent was required to attend a teacher education course in classroom management to obtain ideas on how to better manage her class. Respondent failed to complete that course. She also failed to follow administrative directives that she arrive at school on time and that she maintain anecdotal records for students. Respondent's poor teaching performance and insubordinate behavior in failing to follow directives led Respondent's principal to recommend that her employment be terminated. No action was taken on that recommendation. There was no evidence as to Respondent's job performance between the 1983-84 school year and the 1991-92 school year. From 1991 through 1993, Respondent was assigned to teach a second grade class at Palm Springs North Elementary (Palm Springs). Dawn Hurns was the Respondent's principal at Palm Springs and Raquel Montoya was her assistant principal. Respondent frequently took her class to lunch earlier than scheduled and picked her class up from lunch after the period had expired. Ms. Montoya directed Respondent to adhere to her lunch schedule. Respondent failed to comply with that directive. On February 6, 1992, Ms. Montoya advised Respondent that her continued failure to adhere to administrative directives would result in formal disciplinary action being taken against her. During the 1992-93 school year, Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's performance and noted deficiencies pertaining to record keeping, attendance, tardiness, and organizational skills. After formally observing Respondent's deficient classroom performance, Ms. Hurns met with Respondent and gave her an opportunity to work on her deficiencies. In subsequent observations, both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Montoya found Respondent's performance to be deficient. In an attempt to remedy her unacceptable performance in the classroom, Respondent was provided prescriptive activities designed to improve her classroom management. On November 2, 1992, Ms. Hurns issued Respondent a memorandum addressing her chronic tardiness to school and her failure to notify the school of her expected tardiness in violation of her professional responsibilities. As a result of frequent tardiness, Respondent's students were often left unattended on the basketball court where they assembled before school began. Ms. Hurns often had to escort Respondent's students to their classroom in the absence of the Respondent. Ms. Hurns held a "Conference for the Record" (CFR) with Respondent on December 10, 1992, to address her unacceptable performance and to notify her that continued unacceptable performance would yield an unacceptable annual evaluation. Ms. Hurns also offered Respondent assistance in correcting her deficiencies, including a referral to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Although two meetings were scheduled for Respondent at the EAP, Respondent did not attend either meeting and did not take advantage of the EAP. By December 21, 1992, Respondent had received two unacceptable observations, which yielded an unacceptable summative assessment as established by Petitioner's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). 2/ On January 13, 1993, Ms. Hurns completed a TADS summative assessment form that found Respondent's classroom performance unacceptable in three out of seven categories. The first category was "Knowledge of Subject Matter" with the observed deficiency being ineffective presentation of the subject matter. The second category was "Teacher-Student Relationships" with the observed deficiency being the failure to attempt to systematically involve all students in class activities. The third category was "Assessment Techniques" with the observed deficiency being the failure to properly record grades for students. Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's grade books and discovered that, except for one or two grades in reading, there were no grades or other assessment of the students' work over a period of nine weeks. Respondent was directed to follow the prescribed grading policy, which required a teacher to have at lease one grade per week for each subject area. It was impossible to adequately assess students' work with such few grades or with no grades at all. In addition to the foregoing, Respondent continued to be absent or tardy without excuse. On January 14, 1993, Ms. Hurns held a CFR with Respondent to discuss Respondent's lack of compliance with her professional responsibilities, her irregular attendance, and her frequent tardiness. At the CFR, Respondent was directed to notify an administrator of her intent to be absent or tardy to school, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to provide grades for her students. By memorandum dated February 17, 1993, after a prolonged absence by Respondent, Ms. Hurns advised Respondent of her continuing failure to complete her prescribed activities, and her continuing lack of attendance. Ms. Hurns directed Respondent to either take a leave of absence and notify the school when she expected to return or to resign. On March 8, 1993, Ms. Montoya notified Respondent of her continued disregard for administrative directives. After a parent requested to see proof of her daughter's lack of academic progress in Respondent's classroom and complained of Respondent's refusal to assist the parent in improving her child's performance, Respondent was directed by Ms. Montoya to provide the parent with a daily progress report on the student's performance. Respondent failed to comply with this directive. On March 11, 1993, Ms. Hurns formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and noted that Respondent had not complied with School Board rules, labor contract provisions, and school site rules. Respondent did not maintain accurate student records pertaining to grades for her students, she had not completed her prescriptive activities, and she continued to be absent on a frequent basis. Ms. Hurns held another CFR with Respondent on March 11, 1993, and told her that her continuing failure to comply with the administrative directives given January 14, 1993, constituted gross insubordination. As a result of Respondent having obtained two unacceptable summative assessments, Ms. Hurns requested that Petitioner send to Palm Springs a trained observer to conduct an observation of the Respondent's performance. In response to that request, Norma Bossard, a Language Arts supervisor who had been trained as a TADS observer, was sent by Petitioner to observe the Respondent. Ms. Hurns was present when Ms. Bossard conducted her formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance. Both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Bossard found Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the following categories: "Preparation and Planning," "Knowledge of the Subject Matter," "Techniques of Instruction," and "Assessment Techniques". During the external observation, Respondent gave a lesson on spelling that lasted approximately an hour longer than it should have. Respondent also failed to give her students a pretest to determine whether the spelling lesson was even necessary. The external review by Ms. Bossard was consistent with the observations made by Ms. Hurns as to deficiencies in the Respondent's job performance. Ms. Bossard concluded that Respondent was wasting the time of her students. Ms. Bossard observed that Respondent appeared to be very wide-eyed and disoriented. On April 19, 1993, a CFR was held with Respondent at the Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards to address her unacceptable performance in the classroom, her insubordination in the form of her continued noncompliance with directives relating to her assigned prescriptive activities, and her excessive absences and chronic tardiness. At this CFR, Respondent was again directed to comply with previous administrative directives, and was informed that such compliance had become a condition of her continued employment. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, Respondent had been absent at least 59 days and had been tardy on at least 31 occasions. Despite being specifically told to do so, Respondent frequently failed to call the school and inform school administrators that she would either be absent or tardy. Although Respondent was chronically absent from the work site, she failed to provide lesson plans for substitute teachers. Respondent's persistent absenteeism, failure to provide lesson plans, and lack of assessment of students' work had a detrimental impact on the students assigned to her classroom. As a result of Respondent's continued unacceptable classroom performance, her failure to remediate her deficiencies and her failure to comply with administrative directives, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation by Ms. Hurns. Ms. Hurns submitted a recommendation that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Ms. Hurns had intended to hold a CFR with Respondent to address her unacceptable annual evaluation, but Respondent was absent from school for an extended period of time and the CFR was not held. On July 7, 1993, Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment on the grounds of gross insubordination and incompetency and instituted these proceedings to terminate her continuing contract. Petitioner established that there was a continuing refusal to comply with administrative directives by Respondent and that she failed to abide by procedures for maintaining adequate grading of the work of her students, did not provide appropriate lesson plans, and failed to take advantage of the prescriptive activities assigned for her performance improvement. Respondent's considerable and excessive absences from the classroom and her failure to provide lesson plans and properly grade students' work resulted in a failure to communicate with and relate to her students to such an extent that Respondent failed to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Despite the fact that Respondent was given ample opportunities to correct her behavior, she constantly and intentionally refused to obey direct orders to contact administrators when she was going to be absent or tardy, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to maintain grades for her students. Ms. Hurns and the other administrators involved in evaluating Respondent's performance, took reasonable measures to communicate directly with Respondent about her classroom deficiencies and her attendance. At the formal hearing, Respondent testified that she became confused and disoriented and conceded that she had difficulty working. Respondent introduced evidence in an attempt to establish that her poor job performance was caused by medical problems. Under the Respondent's health care system, Respondent was required to obtain a referral for health care services from her primary physician who was, at the times pertinent hereto, Dr. Olive Chung-James. Dr. Chung-James saw Respondent several times starting in February 1993, for various symptoms and illnesses. In May 1993, Dr. Chung-James, who had been treating Respondent for respiratory problems and vomiting, recommended that Respondent seek psychological counselling because she thought the Respondent was stressed out. After the suspension of her employment in July 1993, Respondent met by coincidence a certified psychologist named Lani Kaskel. Respondent called Dr. Kaskel several times before she was able to arrange an appointment. Because Respondent had not been referred to Dr. Kaskel by Dr. Chung-James, the Respondent's health insurance did not pay for her visit to Dr. Kaskel. When Dr. Kaskel examined the Respondent, the Respondent was in a weak condition, somewhat disoriented, and clearly depressed. Respondent was seeking help and appeared overwhelmed. Dr. Kaskel suggested to Respondent that she might have an organic feature to the depression she was experiencing and referred her to Luis Escovar, a clinical psychologist who had been approved by Respondent's insurance plan. Respondent was referred to Dr. Kenneth Fischer, who is board certified in neurology by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Dr. Fischer's records reflects that Respondent presented herself with a history of personality disorder and headaches. Dr. Fischer conducted a series of tests to determine if there was a physical cause for the headaches she was experiencing, including a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) test, which was abnormal. The MRI revealed an area of the brain with decreased density which was interpreted by the consulting radiologist to be a low-grade tumor. Following his examination of the Respondent, Dr. Fischer was of the opinion that Respondent had either an ischemic process stroke or a brain tumor. His tests were inconclusive, and he could not testify that Respondent's poor performance and her failure to follow directives were attributable to organic causes. Respondent testified that during the 1992-93 school year she got behind in her work and she had trouble finishing her work and the prescriptions mandated by the school administrators. She testified that she did not willfully fail to meet the performance expectations, but that she could not do so because she was ill. Dr. Luis Escovar, a psychologist who treated the Respondent and who performed a series of psychological testing, expressed the opinion that on February 14, 1994, the Respondent was physically and mentally able to return to her employment as a classroom teacher. Respondent asserts that Respondent's poor classroom performance was due to an illness and that she should have been placed on sick leave. Respondent's assertion is rejected for two reasons. First, the medical testimony is speculative and does not establish that Respondent's poor job performance and failure to follow directives were caused by a stroke or by a brain tumor. Second, while Respondent testified that she sought sick leave, she offered no evidence as to whom this request was made, the date the request was made, the duration of the leave requested, the manner in which the leave was requested, or any other circumstances of the request. In light of the many offers of assistance that were made to the Respondent, which she repeatedly declined, it is found that Respondent did not establish that she made a proper request for sick leave that was refused by the administrators of Palm Springs. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which terminates the Respondent's continuing contract of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 28th day of July 1994.
