The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, whether her employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher for 16 1/2 years. She holds a Florida teaching certificate in the areas of specific learning disabilities and educable mental retardation. Throughout her employment by Petitioner, she has been assigned to teach exceptional student education classes. For the 1995-96 school year, she was assigned to teach a varying exceptionalities class at Winston Park Elementary School. At that school, the principal and the assistant principal have a practice of visiting every classroom every day whenever possible. The visits usually consist of a general walk-through. As a result of his visits to Respondent's classroom, Assistant Principal Polakoff, an experienced varying exceptionalities teacher, became concerned about the lack of discipline in Respondent's classroom. Respondent made a large number of referrals of students to the administrators for disciplinary action. Polakoff discussed his concerns with Respondent. In late September or early October, the administration at Winston Park Elementary School requested Rene Miscio, an Exceptional Education Program Specialist from the area office to come and assist Respondent. Miscio identified concerns with Respondent's classroom performance and gave Respondent suggestions for improving her areas of deficiency. Miscio took Respondent to a different school so Respondent could observe that teacher. Respondent later advised her administrators that she was implementing the suggestions made by Miscio. On November 2, 1995, Respondent referred a student to the office. Assistant Principal Polakoff went to Respondent's classroom and observed for 30 to 40 minutes. He wrote detailed notes while he was in Respondent's classroom and later discussed his observations with Principal Smith. They determined that Respondent's performance was deficient in three areas: behavior management, classroom management, and lesson presentation. By letter dated November 2, Assistant Principal Polakoff advised Respondent that she was moved from the development phase to the documentation phase of the Instructional Personnel Assessment System (hereinafter "IPAS") because deficiencies had been identified. In the documentation phase strategies are formulated for remediating the identified deficiencies. The goal is to provide the teacher with strategies to become successful in helping students learn. Principal Smith and Assistant Principal Polakoff worked with Respondent in writing a Performance Development Plan. Such a Plan envisions ongoing contact between the administrators and the teacher to address the teacher's deficiencies over the course of a defined time period. Respondent was given a February 29, 1996, deadline for remediating her deficiencies. Assistant Principal Polakoff began working with Respondent to develop behavior plans for specific students because of his background in exceptional student education. The administrators also assigned the exceptional student education specialist at Winston Park to observe and assist Respondent to overcome her areas of deficiency. Principal Smith also assigned Carolyn Koesten, another special education teacher at Winston Park, to "model" in Respondent's classroom from November 27 through December 7, 1995. Koesten had "modeled" before. "Modeling" means that an experienced teacher teaches another teacher's class in order to demonstrate to that teacher classroom management skills, behavior skills, and academic skills. Principal Smith instructed Koesten to establish a classroom management system, to establish a behavior management system, and to teach the students. When Koesten took over Respondent's classroom, Respondent was on leave. Koesten assessed Respondent's class when she started her modeling. Respondent's lesson plans were sketchy, and no routine had been established in Respondent's classroom. Koesten conducted a class meeting to develop a schedule for daily activities. She, together with the students, set up a behavior management system, establishing the rules of conduct, consequences, and rewards. She experienced no problems with Respondent's students once they had established rules for that classroom. "Running reading records" was a school-wide system being implemented that year to help measure a student's progress in reading. Respondent had no running reading records when Koesten began modeling in Respondent's class. Koesten set up running reading records for Respondent's class, established a reading program using those records, and began using spelling words from the reading program. She also set up learning centers within the classroom so students who had finished an activity could begin other work rather than beginning to misbehave. Respondent did not have any learning centers in her classroom. Respondent returned to school on December 6. Koesten met with her in the morning to explain the changes which had been implemented. Respondent then spent the day observing Koesten teaching Respondent's class. At the end of the day, she again met with Koesten to discuss the reading program and learning centers which Koesten had established. On the next day, Respondent took over the class, and Koesten observed her teaching. During the time that Koesten was in charge of Respondent's class, the class ran smoothly with the classroom management system and the behavior management system she had put in place. The students liked the systems because they had participated in developing them. Neither the number of students in the class nor the mix of students presented Koesten with any problem. During the morning of February 13, 1996, Assistant Principal Polakoff received a referral on one of Respondent's students for whom they had just recently developed an individual behavior plan. He told Principal Smith about the referral, and Smith went into Respondent's classroom. Smith determined that Respondent had ignored the individual behavior plan which they had developed for that student. Principal Smith summoned Respondent to his office that afternoon to meet with him and Assistant Principal Polakoff so he could give her feedback on what he had observed regarding the deficiencies in her performance that still existed. When she arrived, Smith asked her to describe her behavior management plan, and she did. Smith then advised her that she was not following that plan when he was in her classroom. She told him she was not able to follow her behavior management plan because the children were misbehaving. Smith also told her she had not followed the individual behavior plan for the student whom she had referred that morning. Respondent became very loud, angry, and agitated while Smith was trying to discuss her failure to follow the behavior plans. She alternated between being very angry and calming herself. When she calmed herself, she sat down. When she became angry, she got up and leaned on Smith's desk and leaned toward him. Smith kept trying to focus on how Respondent could improve her classroom performance but Respondent would not discuss that subject. She began attacking Smith verbally. She told him he reminded her of her parents. She told him he was a terrible person and a terrible father. She told him she hated him and that everyone hated him. She told him she would not talk to him but would only talk to Assistant Principal Polakoff. Polakoff told Respondent she needed to talk with Smith because Smith was her boss. Smith remained very calm and "matter of fact." He did nothing to cause Respondent to become agitated. He continued to try to focus on what was needed in order for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. At the end of the conference, Respondent told Smith that he was treating her "shitty". Smith calmly responded that at that point her teaching was "shitty" and that it was "a joke". Also at the end of the conference which had lasted for an hour or more, Respondent told Smith that she was "going to get him". Smith asked her what she meant by that, and Respondent told him that he was just going to have to wait to find out, that he would not know when or where she was going to get him, but that she would. The meeting ended when Respondent walked out of Smith's office. Polakoff was so uneasy about Respondent's threats that he followed her when she left the building and locked the building behind her so she could not return. Smith was concerned for his safety, Respondent's safety, and the safety of the other employees due to Respondent's threats and her agitation level. Just a few weeks before, a Broward County employee had killed his co-workers. Smith was concerned regarding Respondent's emotional stability and whether she should be in a classroom. Principal Smith telephoned his supervisor, Area Superintendent Dr. Daly, and told her what had transpired. She gave him an oral reprimand for using the word "shitty" and told him to call Director of Professional Standards Ronald Wright. Wright also orally reprimanded Smith for using that word and told him to send Respondent a memo asking her to clarify what she meant by her statements that she was going "to get" Smith and that he would not know when or where. Wright also explained to Smith the procedures for requesting that an employee undergo a psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation to determine fitness to remain in the classroom. Principal Smith wrote such a memo to Respondent the following day. Two days later, Respondent replied in writing and stayed out of school for the next several days saying she was too depressed to function. Her written explanation is not accurate, does not reflect the tone of her voice or her anger, and is not believable. On February 14, 1996, Principal Smith initiated the procedure for requiring Respondent to undergo psychological and/or psychiatric testing. He also re-assigned her so that she would assist in the school's media center and not return to her classroom until completion of the psychiatric evaluation. While Respondent was assigned to the media center, she was very disruptive. She kept trying to involve students and parents in her anger toward Principal Smith. On Friday, March 1, Respondent initiated a conversation with Josetta Royal Campbell who was in the media center. Although Campbell was a fellow teacher, she had no personal relationship with Respondent. Respondent asked Campbell if she had been evaluated by Principal Smith, and Campbell replied that she had been. Respondent asked if Campbell had heard that Respondent had received a bad evaluation, and Campbell replied that she had not. Respondent followed her to Campbell's classroom. Inside Campbell's classroom, Respondent became very excited and loud and was easily heard by the custodian cleaning the classroom. Respondent told Campbell that she and Smith had a big argument, that Smith was "out to get" her, and that she was going to kill him. Respondent said she thought Polakoff was her friend but he was a "backstabber" and that Koesten was also "out to get" her. She told Campbell that she was "going to get them all", that Smith had ruined her life, and that "everybody involved would pay for it". She also said that she could not return to her classroom until after she had undergone psychological testing but that since she had been under psychological treatment for ten years, she could pass the test with "flying colors". Over the weekend Campbell thought about what Respondent had said. She was concerned about the threats Respondent had made toward Principal Smith and the others. She took Respondent's threats seriously. On Monday she wrote a letter to Principal Smith telling him what had happened. On March 6, Principal Smith re-assigned Respondent to temporary duty with pay in her own home. Respondent selected a psychiatrist from a list given to her by the Director of Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department. She selected Dr. Fernando Mata and was evaluated by him on March 7, 1996. After seeing Respondent on that date, he recommended that she undergo psychological testing. Respondent was given a list of psychologists to choose from, and she selected Dr. Jack Singer. He evaluated her on March 22, conducting a personal interview and administering the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory II, the Thematic Apperception Test, and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Dr. Singer concluded that Respondent is unstable and unpredictable. He opined that Respondent cannot safely handle a classroom full of children at this time. Upon review of Dr. Singer's report, Dr. Mata issued a supplemental report agreeing with Singer's opinions and concluding that Respondent "should not be returned to a classroom setting at this time". A conference was held with Respondent, her union representative, Petitioner's Director of Personnel, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards, and Petitioner's Director of Instructional Staffing to discuss with Respondent the options available to her under Petitioner's policies and the union contract due to the medical report determining that Respondent was not fit to teach at that time. Respondent was advised that she could elect: (1) family/medical leave of up to 12 weeks; (2) disability leave for up to two years; or (3) a personal leave of absence. The financial impacts of each type of leave were explained to Respondent. Respondent declined all leave options. By letter dated May 15, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards wrote to Respondent asking her to confirm that she still declined all leave options. By letter dated May 22, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards again wrote to Respondent confirming that they had spoken on May 20 and that Respondent still declined all leave options and that Respondent understood that her refusal to take any type of leave would force Petitioner to terminate her employment. Petitioner does not second-guess medical opinions. When Respondent declined all leave options, Petitioner had no choice but to initiate termination of Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and dismissing her from her employment with Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this day of November, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis & White, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Sixth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire Tom Young, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, holds Teaching Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of music education. Respondent has been employed as a Music Teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County since 1970. From 1973 until 1986, Respondent taught music at Dunbar Elementary School in the Dade County School District. During the 1970-71 through 1977-78 school years, Respondent received either unacceptable or marginally acceptable scores for five of the seven years on her annual evaluations. (Petitioner's Exhibits 29). During the 1973-79 school year, the School Board altered its evaluations System for instructional Personnel. During the 78-79 through 83-84 school years, Respondent's annual evaluations were rated as acceptable. However, during the school years 1981- 82 through 83-84, school and district Personnel made comments concerning Respondent's need to improve her performance and development in certain areas. (TR 298). Commencing with the 1973 school year, Respondent received assistance from Charles Buckwalter, music specialist for elementary schools for the Dade County School District. Respondent was initially contacted by Mr. Buckwalter that year because of concerns the school's Principal expressed regarding Respondent's lack of classroom management. During that year, Mr. Buckwalter visited and provided assistance to Respondent approximately seven (7) times. Mr. Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent continued during the following three (3) years. During the 1981-82 school year, Mr. Buckwalter assisted Respondent on more than four occasions during which time he attempted to demonstrate lessons concerning management techniques and the use of new materials; objectives of instruction and on January 26, 1982, Buckwalter, along with Dr. Howard Doolin supervisor of music for Dade County, visited Respondent so that Dr. Doolin could observe Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent. On April 26, 1982, Respondent and Mr. Buckwalter met for approximately three and one half hours. Buckwalter visited several of Respondent classes and demonstrated the use of certain new materials. As a part of that visit, he observed Respondent's teaching and noted that Respondent abandoned the new materials and returned to teaching the old curriculum. On November 11, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter spent approximately three hours with Respondent in which time he visited two classes and had a conference with Respondent concerning the new curriculum for level 1 students. On November 18, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter made a follow-up visit concerning Respondent's lesson plans and objectives. Additionally, he demonstrated a lesson to one of Respondent's classes. On or about November 29, 1982, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal, H. Elizabeth Tynes. Ms. Tynes has a wealth of experience lasting more than thirty years in both Hillsborough and Dade Counties. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship and in a subcategory of assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on a large number of disruptive students in her music class and Respondent's inability to control the students' behavior through either verbal or nonverbal strategies. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her failure to demonstrate consistency as concerns student behavior, failing to praise good behavior and reprimand students for disruptive conduct. On another occasion, assistant principal Tynes listened to a musical program Respondent's students were giving over the intercom system. Ms. Tynes rated the program a "total disaster". Ms. Tynes and the principal were "ashamed" of what they heard from Respondent's music class. Respondent demonstrated skills preparation for the program as observed by Ms. Tynes. On May 19, 1983, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Katherine Dinkin, who was then principal of Dunbar Elementary School. Following the observation, Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship, and techniques of instruction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). Principal Dinkins observed that Respondent's students were not on task, the classroom was chaotic and the students only responded to directives of the Principal, as a Person of authority. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instructions based on Ms. Dinkin's observation that students were being taught at levels beyond their ability; class openings and closings were not done appropriately and Respondent failed to develop a plan for the individual needs, interests and abilities of students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of teacher/student relationships based on her failure to demonstrate warmth toward the students and her inability to command respect. During this period in 1983, principal Dinkins prescribed help for Respondent as concerns observing and working with other teachers for guidance. On April 12, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by principal Dinkins and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instructions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on her demonstrated inability to keep students on task or to develop strategies to control their behavior. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instructions based on an inadequately prepared lesson plan and an inability to deliver the instructional components to students. Principal Dinkins observed that the material Respondent attempted to teach was too complicated for the students and she failed to Properly sequence her instructions. Principal Dinkins, who was tendered and received as an expert in the areas of teacher observation and assessment, was unable to observe any continuum of improvement by Respondent over the extended period of Principal Dinkins' supervision. Principal Dinkins opined that Respondent deprived her students of the minimal educational experience in music. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again received help from Mr. Buckwalter. As part of this help, Mr. Buckwalter organized small study groups in order to improve instructions throughout the music education department. These groups met on September 28, October 19, November 9 and 30, 1983. Respondent was asked to become part of the study group. The study group was Particularly concerned with focusing on the scope and sequence of curriculum, students' achievement and implementation of certain aspects of the curriculum, particularly as concern level 1 and 2 students. On or about August 30, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter spent the day with Respondent and a new music teacher, Ronald Gold. On or about September 27, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours in which time he visited three of her classes and again attempted to discuss some work with Respondent concerning student management techniques including the use of a seating chart. On or about October 18, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent approximately four hours during which time he visited several classes and observed her using ideas gleaned from the study group. On or about November 7, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter again visited with Respondent for approximately four hours. After the conference, he taught classes with her and implemented the use of instruments to enrich the class lesson as well as the implementation and use of progress charts. On or about December 9, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited with Respondent for approximately 3 hours. At this time, Mr. Buckwalter expressed concern in that Respondent was not clearly understanding the intent of the school board curriculum. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instructions, teacher/students relationships, assessment techniques and professional responsibility during her annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Edwardo Martinez. Although Respondent was rated acceptable, this class was not a typical situation but rather a rehearsal of a specific program. On other occasions, assistant principal Martinez had opportunities to walk by Respondent's classroom. He often noted loud noises emanating from her classroom. During these instances, he would enter the room and immediately settle the students down. On March 26, 1985, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Maybelline Truesdell, Principal of Dunbar Elementary. Based on this formal observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, instructional techniques and teacher/student relationships. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). As a result of the unacceptable evaluation, Respondent was given a prescription form suggesting methods in which she could improve areas in which she was rated unacceptable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of classroom management based on her inability to retain the students attention; her failure to open and close classes appropriately and her general observation of students being off task. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of instructional techniques based on the observation that she did not interact verbally with students; students were inappropriately excluded from participating in discussions of the lesson and Respondent did not use instructional methods/materials which were appropriate for the students' learning levels. (TR pages 30-35). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of student/teacher relationships based on her improper focusing on a small number of students; inappropriately criticizing a student assistant in the presence of other students, and a failure to use sufficient positive interaction to maintain class control. On may 3, 1985, Respondent was again formally observed by Maybelline Truesdell and rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management; instructional techniques; student/teacher relationships and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management as she failed to properly discipline students; failed to maintain classroom control and students were off task. In the area of techniques of instruction, Respondent received an unacceptable rating in one category which remained unremediated pursuant to a prior prescription issued by Ms. Truesdell. Respondent was again rated unacceptable in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her inability to display any of the indicators considered necessary to become acceptable and her continued rejection of students who volunteered or attempted to participate; her failure to involve the entire class by focusing her attention on a small number of students to the exclusion of others and her failure to appropriately address students by their name rather than "you." (TR 39-41). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based on her failure to follow county and state guidelines for assessing students. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide substantial evidence of (documentation) to justify grades assigned to students and her grade books did not indicate if or when she was giving formal quizzes or tests. In addition, there was no letter grade or numerical indication in Respondent's grade books to gauge academic progress. Additionally, there was insufficient documentation in the student folders to back-up student progress or to otherwise substantiate the grades assigned to students. During the 1984-85 school year, Mr. Buckwalter returned to Dunbar Elementary to again assist Respondent. On September 6, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately three hours during which time he visited a class; co-taught a class and attempted to assist Respondent concerning improvement in areas of student behavior and management. On November 2, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited one of Respondent's classes. He thereafter visited Respondent on March 22, 1985 at which time he spent approximately two hours in her classroom. He taught five classes to demonstrate strategies of progressing students from one level to another. He thereafter conferred with Respondent concerning the need to reflect a positive attitude toward students.. On March 29, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter again visited Respondent. Respondent was then using materials suggested by Mr. Buckwalter although she utilized them in a "rote" manner and included too many concepts within a single lesson. On April 18, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter returned to observe Respondent. The students were going over materials that had been taught in past years and the new curriculum was not being taught. On May 23, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter spent four hours with Respondent. They concentrated on the development of lesson plans; planned activities concerning class objectives and stressed the need to remain-on one concept until it was understood by a majority of the class. Respondent's evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge instructional techniques; teacher/student relationships; assessment techniques and Professional responsibility. On October 10, 1985, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal William J. Kinney. Respondent was rated acceptable in the area of assessment techniques. Mr. Kinney offered certain suggestions to Respondent including the fact that the lesson taught would be more beneficial by more student participation. Respondent was advised of a need to immediately cure problems respecting students who were observed hitting bells with pencils and pens and the need to immediately address problems when students were observed off task. During the school year, Mr. Kinney made numerous informal visits to Respondent's classroom at which times he observed loud noises coming from Respondent's classes, chanting, fighting, furniture pushed into the walls, student misbehavior and other indications that Respondent's classroom management was ineffective. On December 3, 1985, Respondent was officially observed by principal Truesdell and was rated unacceptable in the areas of instructional and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent was made aware of her continuing problems and was provided with an acknowledged receipt of a summary of the conference-for-the-record dated Thursday, December 12, 1985. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Additionally, Respondent was given specific instructions in the form of a prescription concerning her grade book and instructed to strictly follow the conduct prescribed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). In the opinion of principal Truesdell (received as an expert in the area of teacher assessment teacher evaluation, teacher observation in the role of school principal) Respondent was unacceptable for further employment by the school district, was continuing to demonstrate ineffective classroom management, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and had done so for such an extended period of time that improvement appeared unlikely. Additionally, Ms. Truesdell considered that Respondent was unable to make sufficient competent analysis of students' individual needs and potential in the classroom; failed to ensure and promote the accomplishment of tasks to the proper selection and use of appropriate techniques; failed to establish routine and procedures for the use of materials and physical movements of students in her class; failed to employ the appropriate techniques to correct inappropriate student behavior; failed to demonstrate competence in evaluating learning and goal achievement by her students and failed to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal skills required of a teacher to maintain discipline and effectively teach in a classroom environment. On February 7, 1986, Respondent was officially observed in her class by Marilyn Von Seggern, music supervisor for Dade County and by Ms. McCalla, assistant principal at Dunbar, under the provision of the TADS program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Following that observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and teacher/student relationships. In the Professional opinion of Marilyn Von Seggern, received herein as an expert in the areas of music education, teacher observation and assessment, Respondent was depriving students of the minimum educational experience and had serious problems concerning her ability to communicate and relate to students respecting the music curriculum. On January 16, 1986, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Dunbar's assistant principal Carolyn Louise McCalla, and was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 24). Based on Mr. Buckwalter's repeated observation of Respondent's classroom and teaching techniques, Mr. Buckwalter opined that Respondent's students were not receiving the minimum education required by the Dade County School System as concerns the curriculum for music. As example, on one occasion Mr. Buckwalter observed Respondent presenting an organized lesson to students which was quite successful and upon his return approximately five minutes later, Mr. Buckwalter observed that Respondent was not teaching the new successful lesson but had instead reverted back to an old lesson and her students were observed inattentive and generally off task. (TR pages 250-254). On March 26, 1986, Respondent was having difficulty maintaining her students' attention to the point that the students were out of control. While Respondent was attempting to stop a certain student from chanting and beating on the desk, Respondent tried to restrain the student and in so doing, Respondent broke her watch band and scratched the student on her face. The student required hospitalization and although the injury was deemed an accident, Respondent's lack of classroom control and management played a major part in causing the incident. Pursuant to a request by the School Board, Respondent, on April 30, 1986, was evaluated by psychiatrist, Gail D. Wainger. Dr. Wainger took a medical history from Respondent which included Respondent's revelation of previous psychiatrist treatment. Dr. Wainger observed that Respondent had a very flattened, blunted affect with little emotional expression. She related that this was a sign of a patient who was recovering from a major psychiatric episode. Additionally, Respondent showed difficulty recalling recent events. Dr. Wainger diagnosed Respondent as having chronic residual schizophrenia with a possible personality disorder including impulsive and avoidance features. Dr. Wainger opined that a person with such diagnosis would have difficulty being an authority figure and that this would be especially Problematic for students who needed positive reinforcement. On April 28, 1986, Respondent attended a conference-for-the-record with the school board's administrative staff. A past history of performance and evaluations was reviewed. Additionally, the investigative report concerning the injury of the student which occurred March 26, 1986 was also reviewed. Respondent was informed that the matter would be referred to the School Board for possible disciplinary action. (Petitioner's Exhibit 31). On May 21, 1986, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent's employment and initiated the instant dismissal proceeding against her. (Petitioner's Exhibit 32). For the 1985-86 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation indicated that she was rated unacceptable in five of seven categories and was not recommended for re-employment. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, of Respondent, Gloria E. Walker and dismissing Respondent, Gloria E. Walker as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, entered a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity. It is further Recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida, for a period of three years based on incompetence and incapacity. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1987.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Van E. Blanton Elementary School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Van E. Blanton is a typical elementary school within the Miami-Dade County school system, except that it is classified as a "D" school. As in any school, some students engage in disruptive behavior. Respondent holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Florida International University and is certified to teach English as a second language. Pursuant to her certification, she is eligible to teach elementary school students in grades one through six. She has taught for seventeen years. During the 1998-1999 school year Respondent taught third grade. During the 1999-2000 school year she was assigned to teach first grade. Teachers employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (hereinafter "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 (hereinafter "UTD"). The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veteran. TADS objectively measures 67 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. At all times material hereto, TADS was used to evaluate Respondent's performance. TADS includes in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. All teachers are informed of the criteria and procedures. All new teachers receive a copy of "Mini-TADS," a reduced photocopy of the publication entitled "Teacher Assessment and Development System." At the beginning of each school year, school principals are required to review the assessment criteria at faculty meetings. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school principals and assistant principals. TADS observers are trained and certified. The TADS training takes four days and includes the following components: strategies for pre-observation, classroom observation, decision-making with the Classroom Assessment Instrument, post-observation interview, prescription/probation of professionals, recommendations for improvement (prescriptive activities), assisting teachers in the design of instruction and improvement activities, practical activities such as video assessment, and actual classroom teacher assessment under the supervision of a trainer. The observer records deficiencies observed during the observation period and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement. A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response, either in the space provided in column 3 of the "Prescription for Performance Improvement" or by separate document that becomes part of the teacher's file. The teacher is required to comply with the activities provided in the prescription plan, which are usually obtained from the "Prescription Manual," and to meet the deadlines set forth in the column designated "Timeline" in the prescription performance improvement plan. As a result of the statutory 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 the new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a conference for the record initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Each observation stands on its own, and there must be periodic observations during the performance probation period in which the employee is apprised of his or her progress and is provided assistance through prescription plans. After the performance probation period is concluded, there is a confirmatory observation without a prescription plan. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was formally observed by Principal Edith Hall during math class. She was rated unsatisfactory in Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not effectively use verbal or non- verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Several students misbehaved and violated classroom rules continuously. Respondent did not use techniques effectively to maintain the attention of off-task learners. Clear expectations of student behavior and a systematic approach to proper classroom discipline were not evident. Classroom rules were not referred to, and students who were disruptive were not dealt with quickly and appropriately. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because Respondent did not provide background information and information as to why the topic of surveys was being taught. Respondent started with the wrong textbook and abruptly changed books without explanation and without setting the stage for the lesson. Lesson components were not appropriately sequenced. Activities were not in her lesson plans. Respondent and her students read material together, and students were told to copy a chart. There was no closure to assist the students in understanding the concept of surveys. Little or no instruction or learning took place. During the post-observation conference for the record held April 14, 1999, Respondent was advised that her performance was unacceptable, that starting on that date she was placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period, and that at the end of her probation period she had to demonstrate that she had corrected the identified deficiencies. This conference took place within 10 calendar days excluding spring recess, which started April 2 and ended April 9, 1999. Principal Hall made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. Respondent provided her written responses in column 3 of the prescription plan, basically explaining her unsuccessful efforts to control students' disruptive behavior. The assistance provided included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and submitting a summary of the verbal and non-verbal discipline techniques used by that teacher to redirect off-task learners. Respondent was also directed to read specific pages from the TADS Prescription Manual, to complete certain activities in that Manual, to develop instructions for proper student behavior, and to submit those activities to the assistant principal for review. Recommended resources, such as administrators and fellow teachers, were also made available to Respondent. Respondent had until May 14, 1999, to complete the prescription activities listed in the April 14 prescription plan. She submitted her completed activities in a timely manner. On May 20, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her science class by Assistant Principal Christina Miracle as a periodic evaluation to apprise Respondent of her progress. Respondent was found unsatisfactory in Category I, Preparation and Planning, Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans failed to state the objectives, activities, homework, or method of monitoring student progress and because she did not fill the allocated time with instruction. Twenty minutes were wasted waiting for a video that was never shown, which video was not reflected in Respondent's lesson plans for that day. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there was too much time when there was no instruction taking place. Instructional activities did not begin promptly and did not continue until the end of the allocated time period. Approximately half of the students were not engaged in learning activities. Respondent did not effectively use verbal and non-verbal techniques to redirect the off-task behavior. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not follow a sequence of instruction and did not refer to any previous information that students should possess to facilitate learning the lesson. In addition, the lesson components were not appropriately sequenced. First, Respondent stated that they would be learning about animals but when the video was not shown, she proceeded to discuss natural resources. No explanation or connection was made between the two topics. Respondent made no provision for lesson closure. The students told Respondent it was time to go home and started leaving the classroom. During the post-observation conference on May 27, 1999, Miracle made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included preparing detailed lesson plans identifying objectives, activities, assessment and homework, submitting her lesson plans to the assistant principal on a weekly basis, and observing a fellow teacher to note verbal and non-verbal techniques. The prescription also required Respondent to submit to the assistant principal a classroom management plan to implement in Respondent's classroom. Respondent was also directed to complete several specific activities from the TADS Prescription Manual and to discuss them with the assistant principal. Recommended resources from the administration and the TADS Prescription Manual were also made available to Respondent. Respondent's prescription plan activities were due on September 10, 1999, but she did not submit them. Respondent was given until September 27 to complete those activities, but she again failed to complete them. On September 15, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her language arts class by Principal Hall. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, and Assessment Techniques. Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in the area of preparation and planning because the content of the lesson and the activities were not related to the objective listed in the lesson plan. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan as written. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she did not present information in a sequentially-logical manner. The information presented was disjointed and in an illogical sequence. Respondent failed to present information at more than one cognitive level. The students were asked to trace and color without any probing or higher-level questioning. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there were no clear expectations for behavior. Students ignored the classroom rules, and Respondent did not refer to those rules when students misbehaved. She did not deal appropriately with off-task students. Many students talked out of turn, got out of their seats without permission, and talked with classmates during instruction. Respondent failed to engage those students in learning. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in her techniques of instruction because the lesson components were inappropriately sequenced. Respondent began with color words, then discussed time, and then gave directions for heading the paper. She interrupted students by constantly referring to the time remaining to complete the assignment. She did not provide for lesson closure and did not recap any of the activities of the day. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because there was only one grade in her grade book and no evidence of more than one kind of assessment. There was no evidence of a variety of test formats. There were no samples of student work on file. During the post-observation conference on September 21, Principal Hall made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the Prescription Plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included preparation of detailed lesson plans, with objectives, activities, and student assessment, to be submitted to the assistant principal for review on a weekly basis. Respondent was told to follow her lesson plans for each subject each day, to prepare her classroom activities prior to teaching the lesson, and to review those activities with the assistant principal. Arrangements were made for Respondent to observe fellow teachers. Respondent was to prepare a summary of her observations as to how other teachers encouraged their students to improve their behavior and the strategies those teachers used for verbal interaction. Respondent was to include in that summary the manner in which she could incorporate her observations into her own lessons and discuss her summary with the assistant principal. Respondent was told to use the standard teacher grade book to record student attendance and student assessment and to submit her grade book to the assistant principal on a weekly basis. Respondent refused to sign the Prescription Plan and did not submit any written response. The activities required by the Prescription Plan were due September 24, 1999, but Respondent failed to submit them. She was given until September 27 to do so, but again failed to submit them to the assistant principal as directed by the Prescription Plan. On September 29, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her math class by Principal Hall and was rated unsatisfactory in Classroom Management and Techniques of Instruction. This observation was made within 14 days of the close of Respondent's probationary period and was made for the sole purpose of determining if Respondent's deficiencies had been corrected. This confirmatory observation does not require a prescription plan. On September 30 Respondent was notified that she had failed to submit her prescriptive activities, had failed to meet the Prescription Plan requirements, and had failed to correct her performance deficiencies. On that date Principal Hall forwarded to the Superintendent of Schools her recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. On October 5 the Superintendent notified Respondent that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated because she had failed to correct her performance deficiencies during her 90 calendar-day performance probationary period. The School Board's contract with UTD provides for a joint labor/management committee commonly known as the TADS monitoring committee. That committee serves as a forum to resolve complaints regarding observation and evaluation issues. Respondent did not register any complaint with the TADS monitoring committee and did not file any grievance under the UTD contract as a result of any dispute or objection concerning the TADS criteria or procedures or her assessments under TADS. On September 28, 1999, Respondent did file a grievance with UTD claiming harassment by Principal Hall. That grievance did not articulate any dispute with the TADS criteria or procedures used to evaluate Respondent. Respondent's complaint of harassment was based solely on frequent classroom visits by her principal. At a meeting held on October 8, 1999, Principal Hall explained that it was her duty to make classroom visits because Van E. Blanton was rated as a "D" school and that she regularly visited every classroom. Respondent's grievance was filed only after the close of her performance probationary period, and the meeting occurred after the Superintendent had recommended to the School Board that Respondent's employment be terminated. The assistance provided to Respondent through her prescriptions was appropriate to remedy her cited deficiencies. Respondent was also provided assistance in the form of workshops, monthly grade-level teacher meetings, in-service workshops and classroom demonstrations. Respondent was observed in two of the workshops eating potato chips and not taking any notes. Despite the assistance given to Respondent, she did not improve sufficiently at any time subsequent to April 14, 1999, to obtain a satisfactory rating under TADS. Respondent could have taken the Summer 1999 In-service Program for elementary teachers, or the Dimensions of Learning Program, or the Substitute Teacher Training: Classroom Management and Effective Teaching Techniques, or any of the workshops offered by the Teacher Education Center but did not do so. Under the UTD contract, teachers cannot be required to attend in-service programs held during the summer recess. Participation by teachers in those programs is voluntary. For whatever reasons, Respondent chose not to participate in order to correct her deficiencies during her performance probationary period. Respondent claims that Principal Hall inappropriately performed one of her observations when testing was scheduled. The alleged testing was a diagnostic survey that is done on an individual basis. Teachers are still required to provide learning activities for the other students while such testing is being performed. Further, Respondent failed to perform that required testing, and other teachers had to test Respondent's students. Respondent also claims that the September 29, 1999, observation was performed during a time when she was not scheduled to teach. However, Respondent's class schedule belies that claim. All TADS requirements were completed, and all TADS procedures were properly executed regarding the formal observations of Respondent and the evaluations of her teaching performance. Further, Respondent was not harassed by Principal Hall regarding the formal observations of Respondent pursuant to TADS requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Respondent's employment and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Roger Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa N. Pearson, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Street Miami, Florida 33129 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether it was proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in Petitioner's Petition; and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Stipulated Facts During the 2014-15 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Frontier Elementary School ("Frontier"). Respondent is an experienced teacher. Facts Established at the Hearing Petitioner is the duly-constituted school board of Palm Beach County, Florida. It is charged with the duty to provide a public education to the students of Palm Beach County and to establish policies and programs consistent with state law and rules that are necessary for the efficient operation and general improvement of the Palm Beach County district school system. Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher in the Palm Beach County district school system for 16 years and has been teaching since 1996. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed at Frontier in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent previously taught second grade, third grade, and fifth grade in self-contained class settings. During the events relevant to this action, she was an English Language Learners (ELL) resource teacher to children in grades first through fifth. Her performance evaluations had been positive up until the events which are involved in this matter. The employment relationship between Petitioner and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Classroom Teachers Association of Palm Beach County ("CTA"). Petitioner has alleged in its Petition that Respondent is guilty of the following violations of statute, School Board policies, or administrative rules: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c) and (2)(d) Commitment to the Student, Principle I; School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (4)(d), (4)(e), (4)(f), (4)(h), and (4)(j), Code of Ethics; School Board Policy 5.002, Anti-Bullying and Harassment, Expectations; School Board Policy 1.013(1), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff, School Board Policies; School Board Policy 3.27, Criteria for Suspension & Dismissal and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; Article II, Section M of the CTA Collective Bargaining Agreement; Rule 6A-5.056, F.A.C., (2) Misconduct in Office; H. Rule 6A-5.056(4), F.A.C., of [sic] Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; I. Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. The facts underlying these alleged violations are outlined in paragraphs 8 through 12 of the Petition filed by the School Board dated March 2, 2016. See DOAH docket entry and Petition filed on March 2, 2016. Incident Involving Z.N. Z.N., a student of Respondent, was called by the School Board. On direct examination, he was unable to remember how he was treated by Turnbull when she was his teacher. Other than acknowledging that he remembered being pulled out of Petitioner's class, Z.N. articulated no credible, clear, or convincing testimony supporting any of the allegations lodged against Respondent regarding her interaction(s) with him. Z.N.'s mother, J.N., testified that Turnbull was her son's teacher when he previously attended H.L. Johnson Elementary School ("H.L. Johnson"). Z.N. would come home every day crying and seemed miserable in Respondent's class. These observations occurred when he was Respondent's student at that elementary school. He was moved to her class at Frontier on September 22, 2013. There were times when he attended her class at H.L. Johnson that he would come home from school and would be visibly shaking. He would throw up the night before school, and she would have to physically put him in the classroom while he would beg and scream not to stay. Prior to and after leaving her class, Z.N. did not exhibit those behaviors. She wrote a letter complaining to the principal about Respondent. His mother also testified that Z.N. has been diagnosed as having attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"). The mother observed that on days where he had to attend school with Respondent at H.L. Johnson, she noticed a big difference in his sleeping and his eating. His demeanor would change, and he became withdrawn. The mother of Z.N. did not personally observe any interaction between her son and Respondent in the classroom. The father of Z.N. testified as well. He recounted that his son did not want to attend school while he was previously in Respondent's class at H.L. Johnson. He would become upset, emotional, and withdrawn. His son "threw fits," broke down, and cried when he had to go to school. To investigate his son's disconcerting response, the father personally "observed" the class three times, from outside the door.1/ During one visit, he observed the class being somewhat reckless, and Respondent was trying to get her class under control. He heard Turnbull slam a book on the desk to get the attention of the class. He heard Petitioner use the "F bomb" on one occasion.2/ When Z.N. transferred out of Turnbull's class, he started doing very well, began to succeed, and started to come out of his shell. He began going to school with less of a problem. Like the mother, Z.N.'s father did not personally observe or witness any interaction between his son and Respondent. E.D. was a student in the same class with Z.N. and Respondent at H.L. Johnson. She testified that she found Respondent to be a great teacher, and she learned things in the class with her. She felt that Turnbull was very nice to other students and her. She never saw Turnbull pick on Z.N., or treat him in a way that she felt was unfair. On the other hand, E.D. testified that Z.N. was loud and disruptive in class. Z.N. caused problems in the class which prevented the class from moving forward. E.D. did not recall hearing Respondent yell at any students, other than perhaps once when the class was loud. She never saw or heard Z.N. cry in class. The testimony of E.D. was credible and gained from personal knowledge and actual observation of teacher/student interactions in the classroom. Turnbull testified about her involvement with Z.N. At some point in time, Z.N. eventually became her class student. He was bright, although he had a diagnosis of ADHD and had been prescribed medication, which he "took infrequently, at best." He acted out and was disruptive in class virtually every day. He was disruptive in different ways, sometimes calling out and sometimes making funny noises with his mouth. At times, he would bother the other children. The behavior of Z.N., combined with that of other students, was difficult and disruptive, preventing her class from moving along according to the curriculum. As a result, the class was falling behind the other classes academically. Respondent did yell at Z.N. but not as a first resort. She would first talk to him and ask him to stop. She tried different techniques with Z.N., but admitted that there could have been times when her voice got louder when she had to repeat the same thing to Z.N. six or seven times within a short time period. She has a loud voice, which some students can interpret as yelling, but that was not her intent. Until the time Z.N. left her classroom, she felt that the parents were supportive. The mother sent her emails thanking her partially for what she was doing for her son, including an email thanking her for easing his transition into her class. She felt compassion for Z.N. and believed that he could not control what he was doing, particularly when he was not regularly taking his prescribed medication. The more persuasive evidence is that Z.N. presented teaching problems and challenges to Respondent. He disliked going to school after he was assigned to Respondent's classroom, but the undersigned is not convinced that his reaction to school was based on any traumatic treatment by Respondent. Z.N. himself offered absolutely no evidence regarding any wrongdoing by Respondent. Based on this record, there was simply a lack of clear and convincing evidence to support the allegation(s) that Respondent violated any statute, policy, or rule regarding her interaction with Z.N. Incident Involving Student A.C. A.C. was called by the School Board. He was Turnbull's fifth-grade student at Frontier. A.C. is now 13 years old and in seventh grade. On direct examination, he testified that he liked having Respondent as his teacher. He also recounted that there was not a time he did not want her to be his teacher or a time he did not want to be taught by her. Inconsistently, however, he also testified that he talked to his parents about getting him out of Respondent's class because she was rude and he did not want to be in her class. After he was no longer in her class group, there came a time when Respondent wanted A.C. to return to her group. A.C. testified that Turnbull came to get him and took him outside to talk. She stood close to him outside in a hallway alcove. He said that he was scared and nervous because he did not like the idea of a teacher talking to him. However, Respondent did nothing else to make him feel uncomfortable while they were standing in the hall. Respondent was merely talking to him. A.C. testified that when he spoke with Respondent in the hallway, she told him how much she liked him. She was not yelling or rude to him. This same hallway discussion between Turnbull and A.C. was apparently observed by Jacquelyn Marie Smith, a ten-year teacher at Frontier. She testified that one day as she was walking down the hallway with a few students, she observed Respondent and A.C. in the alcove of a doorway outside a classroom, standing about eight inches apart. It appeared to her that Respondent was speaking to A.C. and reprimanding him for something. She observed the look on A.C.'s face and could tell that he was very uncomfortable. However, she did not hear anything said by either Respondent or the student. She assumed the student was being disciplined based on his body stance and facial expressions. She did not observe Respondent place her hands on A.C. in the hallway. She testified that she observed the situation for "maybe 10 seconds."3/ There was nothing about Respondent's demeanor, posture, or anything else that led her to believe that Respondent was angry or upset. She never observed A.C. crying during her brief observation of this hallway encounter. Another teacher, Rosa Cabrera, testified that as she was passing by, she also saw Respondent in the hallway with her finger pointed at "J," a second-grader. Respondent was crouched down in the student's face saying things which Cabrera could not hear. She had no idea what Respondent was saying to the child. She did not hear anything, although she passed very close to Respondent and the student. The two were talking in a tone lower than a typical conversational tone. Like Smith, Cabrera found the fact that Respondent was standing so close to the student to be improper.4/ Respondent testified that A.C. was removed from her group for a period of time. She understood that he had gone home one day and expressed to his father that he was upset because he felt that she did not like him or that she had been mean to him and he did not want to go back to her class. When he was removed from her teaching group, Turnbull became concerned about A.C. not being provided the teaching instructions he needed. It was unrebutted that she exchanged emails with the assistant principal expressing her concern for him and her desire to work with A.C. again. As a result of her request, she was directed by the assistant principal to work with A.C. again. Respondent decided to speak to A.C. first to be sure that he was comfortable with her. She asked A.C. to come out of his class into the hallway, and they spoke in the hallway alcove. The alcove was the width of the door and perhaps an additional six inches on either side. She did this so that their conversation would not be overheard by classmates, would not embarrass him, and to ensure that A.C.'s privacy would be protected. She stood close to A.C. because there was little room in the alcove and she could hear his voice. She wanted to speak quietly and gently to him so that she would be more reassuring to him.5/ Respondent told A.C. that she understood that he felt that she was angry at him for some reason. She told him that she wanted to reassure him that she was not angry with him. Respondent told A.C. that there had been some misunderstanding between them and she would like to try to clear it up. She asked him how he felt about coming back into her class group, and told him that they missed him because he was a great addition to it. By the time the conversation was over, A.C. was smiling. They shook hands and said that they would see each other in group later that day. A.C. came to her group later that day and had an excellent session, smiling more than he had before. At no time in her conversation with him was there any scolding, anger, or cross words used. The evidence from the student, A.C., did not support a finding of any violations by clear and convincing evidence. What he did recall, and testify to, did not amount to infractions by Respondent. Likewise, the fellow teachers' unfavorable conclusions about what they observed in the hallway alcove were based on brief observations and did not constitute clear or convincing evidence of any violations. Incident Regarding Marisa Madzi Respondent "pushed in" to the classroom of Marisa Madzi, a third-grade teacher at Frontier.6/ Madzi alleged that Respondent "corrected her" in front of the class, although Madzi could not recall specifically what the correction was about. She recalled that Respondent "chimed in," telling her that she was wrong about a point or topic she had been explaining to her class. Madzi felt that Respondent acted in an unprofessional manner and that if she had an issue, she thought she should have addressed it afterwards and not in front of the class. However, Respondent's statement in front of the class did not cause her to stop her teaching. Respondent previously complained to Madzi that Madzi was loud in the classroom when she taught and that it was interrupting Respondent while she was working with her small group.7/ Respondent explained the incident in a different way. She was working with her students when one of them shared with her his response to Madzi's explanation of the answer. The student explained to Turnbull that he did not understand why his answer was wrong. She looked at the question and could see where his confusion came from. Either Madzi walked over to her to determine what she was talking to the student about or Respondent gestured for her to come over. She told Madzi that "I explained it to him, but you may want to go further into explaining to him why that's the right answer." Madzi had a reaction to being called over by Turnbull and said, "Okay, I will take care of it." Madzi had a funny look on her face that made Respondent uncomfortable. Thinking that Madzi may have been upset by their interaction in class, Respondent sent her an email (Resp. Ex. 40), saying that she did not intend to step on Madzi's toes. The purpose of the email was to apologize for giving Madzi the impression that she was correcting her. Turnbull testified that during the entire time that Respondent worked at Frontier, Madzi never spoke to her to suggest that there was anything about her, her teaching style, or her dealings with her students that she was uncomfortable with. The undersigned finds that there was not clear or convincing evidence to conclude that the incident in Madzi's class constituted a violation of any statute, policy, or rule. Incident Involving Rose Cabrera Rose Cabrera has been a teacher at Frontier for 12 years. She was driving home from campus one day and felt that Respondent was driving behind her in an aggressive manner.8/ The next day Cabrera approached Respondent on campus and said that she was the one that Respondent was tailgating and yelling at. She claimed that Respondent immediately got upset and started yelling at her and telling her that she was unprofessional. Cabrera then walked away. The next work day, Respondent stopped Cabrera in the hallway and asked to talk. Cabrera claimed that Respondent told her that "there were two possible reasons why people tailgate; either they are crazy or they have a problem, like something's going on." Cabrera testified that she walked away; but, that Respondent continued to yell at her, saying that she was unprofessional and pointing her finger at her. No students or other employees were present at either of these encounters between Respondent and Cabrera, and none were called to testify about them. Turnbull testified that she recalled the incident. She was running late for an appointment and was driving in a rush. She did not recognize the person driving the car in front of her. The next day, as she left the mail room, a person whom she did not recognize was blocking her way. The woman began to berate her, stating that Respondent had been tailgating her, that she was crazy on the road, that the woman had recently had an accident and was very nervous on the road, and that Respondent should not have been doing what she did. Respondent "could not get a word in edgewise." Neither woman was shouting. Shortly thereafter, Respondent saw Cabrera in the hallway and asked to speak with her. She tried to explain to her that she was sorry if she had upset her on the road. The two were talking over each other, but Respondent tried to explain that if somebody is behind her or beeping or waving or tailgating, she usually just gets out of their way, as obviously they are in a hurry for some reason. Cabrera said that she did not want to talk to Respondent. She had upset her the other day and was upsetting her again, so she walked away. As Cabrera was walking away, Respondent told her she was being unprofessional because she was not allowing Respondent to reply to the accusation. They never spoke of the matter again. The off campus incident on the road and the follow-up discussions on campus do not support a violation of any statute, rule, or policy by clear and convincing evidence. There was no credible evidence presented to suggest that any students or other staff members were affected, and the dispute was in the nature of a personal disagreement between Turnbull and Cabrera. This conduct and personal encounter, while regrettable, did not rise to the level of a violation of a statute, policy, or rule by Respondent. Incident in Alyssia Liberati's classroom. Alyssia Liberati worked as a teacher at Frontier for approximately 15 years. Respondent was teaching two students at the back table in her classroom, while Liberati was teaching the main class a social studies lesson. Liberati asked her students a question and, when some raised their hands, Respondent inexplicably raised her hand as well. The students thought that was funny. Liberati did not find Respondent's action to be appropriate because she was asking the children the question, not Respondent. Liberati could not remember whether Respondent was working with her students on a separate matter or whether they were included as part of the social studies lesson. Respondent claims they were coordinating their work, and one of her students wanted to participate in Liberati's question. Turnbull further testified that when the class was asked this question by Liberati, one of Respondent's own students had the correct answer. She encouraged the student to raise his hand and answer Liberati's question. When he just smiled, she offered to raise her hand for him, and he agreed. When she raised her hand, Liberati called on her. When the student would not answer, despite her encouragement, Respondent announced the student's answer and attributed it to him. Liberati said nothing to her then or after class and did not chastise her in any way, then or later. Respondent testified that part of her job was to help the English for Speaker of Other Languages (ESOL) students acquire oral language and the ability to socially interact and participate. She wanted to show the student that he should not be afraid of participating. Liberati continued on with her class and never suggested to Respondent that by raising her hand and offering her student's answer, she had disturbed her class. Empty Classroom Incident with Alyssia Liberati On another occasion, Respondent went to Liberati's classroom to "push in" and found the classroom dark and empty. Respondent waited for approximately ten minutes, thinking that the students may have been out of the room for some reason and would be late getting back. When the class never appeared, Respondent left. She wrote an email to Liberati, asking that she be notified in the future if the class and teacher were not going to be in the room at her designated arrival time.9/ Pet. Ex. 12. Liberati testified that she received an email from Respondent that night, which she characterized as requesting that she let Respondent know next time in advance if she was not going to be in the classroom because her time is valuable, that she does not have much time to go from one classroom to the next, and that she had wasted her time trying to find out where her students were. She responded to the email late that night, explaining about her daughter. She found Respondent's email to be offensive and inappropriate. The next morning, Respondent read the late night email from Liberati and, for the first time, found out about Liberati's daughter's situation. She responded immediately to Liberati and explained that at the time that she wrote her email, she had not known that Liberati's absence had been due to a family emergency. She also inquired about the well-being of her daughter. Pet. Ex. 12. Respondent further wrote, "No offense was intended," and "[S]o I hope none was taken." She followed up by going to Liberati's room in the morning to ask her if she had seen her email from that morning. Liberati replied that she had not yet seen it. Respondent explained to her that had she known that Liberati's daughter was ill, she would have never sent the email. Respondent told Liberati that her daughter takes priority and that she inquired as to how her daughter was doing. Liberati testified that she was offended by the email and that Respondent did not have to send it. She felt that Respondent could have asked another teacher where her students were. Respondent tried to explain to her that she had been instructed not to knock on other teachers' doors for any reason, so she did not-–as she did not want to disturb other classes. Nonetheless, Liberati was very angry with her. During Respondent's follow-up about the second email the next morning, Liberati felt that Respondent was in her personal space and she felt uncomfortable. She noted that Respondent's tone was very rude and confrontational and felt Respondent should not be speaking to her like that in front of the children in the hall. However, Liberati acknowledged that Respondent expressed to her in one form or another that no offense was intended. Liberati's coworker, Tara Levine, saw Respondent come down the hallway the next morning in what she described as a fairly aggressive manner, at a fast pace and with an annoyed look on her face. Levine observed a conversation between Liberati and Respondent which she felt was "a little heated." However, Levine admitted that she could not remember the conversation or its tone. She felt it was necessary to remove students from the area, which was in the hallway just before school started. Levine testified that Respondent's finger was in Liberati's face, although she observed that Liberati is much taller than Respondent, who was standing very close to Liberati. Levine never reported the incident to any administrator. Based on an objective view of the facts involving Liberati's classroom hand-raising incident and their exchange of comments regarding the empty classroom incident, there is no clear and convincing evidence that these events constituted a violation of any statute or rule. Respondent was attempting to coach her student to raise his hand when he had the right answer, and then modeled the hand-raising for him. Rather than doing something improper, Respondent was serving her student in a manner that caused no problem to Liberati. While Liberati may have been taken back by this technique, it did not constitute a violation of any rule or policy. Likewise, there was nothing improper about the email written by Respondent, who did not know about the ill child. When she found out, she responded appropriately and with due concern for the child, explaining that she did not know of the circumstances. Although the undersigned credits the observation by Levine, the hallway confrontation between Liberati and Respondent does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence to support a violation of statute, policy, or rule. Incidents Involving J.B. Respondent taught in a class of students with Janet Vino, a teacher at Frontier. Vino testified that Respondent was very aggressive toward her student, J.B. Respondent would get "in his face," speaking loudly enough for the rest of the class to hear. While Vino conceded that there was nothing inappropriate about reprimanding a student who is having behavior issues, Respondent did so in a way that Vino could hear Respondent as she was teaching her lesson off to the side. Vino described Respondent's demeanor with J.B. as very loud, with her being very close to him and with her fingers pointing in his face. Vino said that Respondent on occasion would ask her in class whether she had issues with him too. On occasion, J.B. would hide in the bathroom to avoid going with Respondent. When he would come out to go with her, he would be sulking. J.B. was in the midst of a number of family and legal-related problems, and he also had discipline issues. Vino acknowledged that she was never trained to avoid pointing your finger and shaking it at a student or not to "get too close to a student." Respondent conceded that she had problems with J.B. He would not do his work and was disruptive. J.B. would do disruptive things, like crawl under the work table and lift it up with his shoulders, while she was working with the other students. J.B. spoke to her disrespectfully at times and would hold up the class by taking his time getting started and by not being ready when she would arrive to pick him up. Sometimes he would go in the bathroom and would not come out. The effect of J.B.'s behavior on her teaching was to limit the time that she had available to teach him and other students in his group. It often took ten minutes to get J.B. to the room and seated at the table, before they could even get started. His behavior interrupted the lessons that Respondent was trying to teach and interrupted the learning of the other students. Respondent sought help with J.B. from his teacher, Vino, and Assistant Principal Witt. Respondent sought help from Vino one time in her classroom, calling her to ask if she could come over and help with J.B. because he was refusing to work and instead was writing on the worktable with a crayon. Vino never complained to Respondent about her request for help but seemed unwilling to help her with J.B. As a result, Respondent did not seek her assistance again. Turnbull sent emails to the principal and the assistant principal concerning J.B. and his problems at school. Respondent felt that J.B. was a special child who came from a difficult situation and that people at the school should be working to help him. She wanted to keep the administration informed regarding her dealings with him and how he was doing with her. Resp. Exs. 10, 11, 12, 15, and 24. Respondent made efforts to try to work with and communicate with J.B., notwithstanding his behavioral issues. She tried speaking to him directly and told him that his behaving was keeping him from learning and preventing the other student from learning. Respondent testified that she liked J.B., and, as disruptive as he was, she felt a great deal of compassion for him. She understood his bad situation at home and knew that his family was split up among foster homes. She believed that his disruptive behavior was attention-seeking and that he was an angry boy. The undersigned finds that the more credible and persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent had trouble with J.B., who presented a formidable challenge to teach. This very likely would have been true for any teacher dealing with him. Respondent sought help from his teacher and the administration. The observations and concerns raised by Vino, while understandable, do not rise to the level of providing clear and convincing evidence of a violation of any statute, policy, or rule. Behavior Observed by Principal Susan Groth Susan Groth has been the principal at Frontier for six years. She felt that the collegial and helpful climate at her school changed after Respondent came to the school. While offering no causal or underlying link to Respondent, Groth claimed that teachers became more reserved, no longer left their doors open in the morning, and had fewer interactions with one another. She claimed that this collegial atmosphere changed with Respondent's arrival.10/ Groth claimed to have personally witnessed that after certain encounters with Respondent, Community Language Facilitator Melady Roque would be shaken and crying.11/ Groth personally encountered combative behavior from Turnbull when she would try to have conversations with her. She also started to receive complaints from other teachers about Turnbull.12/ In response, she offered Respondent different training opportunities, which Respondent attended. Groth provided Respondent with two mentors for advice because she was new to the "push in" and "pull out" class system at Frontier. Groth was made aware of issues involving Respondent from other teachers within her first three weeks at the school. She received reports about Respondent concerning intimidation, humiliation, interruptions, unprofessionalism, and Respondent being very defensive.13/ However, she did not witness those encounters or behaviors herself. She noted that Respondent was defensive when she would provide constructive feedback to her. During one of her classroom observations of Respondent at work, a student misread certain sight words. Respondent nonetheless praised his work. Groth addressed the matter with her. She felt that Respondent's response to her counseling was very defensive. Subsequently, Groth gave a written observation report to Respondent. Respondent disagreed with several observation points made by Groth. She provided Groth with a written explanation setting forth her rebuttal and verbally defended her position.14/ Despite this, when Groth provided her with helpful resources and training to review, Respondent participated. However, Groth felt that Respondent did not accept her criticism very well. The issues that Groth had with Respondent were becoming less serious as time went on. It appeared to Groth that by January of Respondent's first year at Frontier, Respondent was beginning to properly adjust to the school environment and personnel. However, shortly thereafter, during an investigative meeting with Turnbull, Groth confronted Respondent with the names of several teachers that had complained about Respondent's behavior.15/ During the meeting, Turnbull had a pad of paper out and was bearing down hard and writing every time a new name of a witness was disclosed by Groth. At one point, she threw down her pencil on the table in frustration and stated, "This is horse shit." She did not throw the pencil at any person, nor did Groth think that it was her intent to do so. Respondent's union representative, at one point, had to calm her down because Respondent's arms were flailing, and she was explosive. Respondent used profanity during the meeting.16/ Despite Turnbull's actions, the process went on to completion. Neither Respondent nor her union representative ever asked for the meeting to be adjourned. Respondent's actions during that meeting were documented.17/ Pet. Ex. 11. Turnbull provided her version of this investigatory meeting with Groth. She received notification that an incident involving A.C. was being investigated. The notice of the meeting advised her that there was going to be an inquiry into an incident regarding A.C. At the meeting, other matters, unrelated to A.C., were brought up by the principal. Respondent objected to the other matters being raised. She felt that she had been "blindsided" and was being treated unfairly by consideration of matters that were not part of the official notice to her. Respondent became upset and started crying because these issues were statements made against her by colleagues, and she did not know so many people were upset with her. She testified that none of her colleagues ever approached her about any of these complaints or issues. She thought that the meeting was called to discuss one specific incident regarding one specific child. She was overwhelmed when she learned that there were so many complaints against her by teachers who had never said anything to her. Respondent was completely unaware that the statements from other teachers had even been taken. She admitted she felt betrayed and was extremely upset, stunned, and shocked. She did not threaten any person and did not confront any of the complaining teachers or staff members. Groth claimed to be worried about the safety and security of her staff and students, because of Respondent's profanity, emotional state, and explosive behavior at the meeting. Groth worried about Respondent "going after" one of the people on the list of witnesses announced at the meeting. After the meeting, Respondent was escorted off the campus without incident. Groth's belief that the mood at her school changed after Respondent arrived, without her own specific observations of conduct by Respondent, is nonetheless credited. However, her "sense" of an atmospheric change falls short of clear and convincing evidence of a violation of a policy or rule by Respondent. While Groth had the responsibility to observe and evaluate Respondent's performance, Respondent had the right to professionally and respectfully defend that performance in the observation conference. The manner of her evaluation performance defense does not violate any statutory policy or rule. However, the undersigned finds that Respondent's use of profanity and her unrestrained and explosive conduct, at the investigative meeting, were inappropriate and insubordinate. Petitioner provided sufficient and credible evidence to prove a violation of the rules and policies by clear and convincing evidence regarding her actions and conduct during this investigatory meeting with Groth. Other Relevant Events and Testimony From Respondent Aside from teachers who claimed difficulties or hostile encounters with Respondent, there were also teachers and colleagues who complimented her work and teaching methods. Janine Brockelbank has been a "push in" teacher at Frontier since 2003, like Turnbull. When she worked together in the room, she did not observe any problems with Turnbull. She observed Respondent working with Lisa Caprio's students, and the interaction seemed positive and professional to her. Turnbull often spoke closely and quietly to children in consideration of the privacy of the children and to prevent embarrassment. Brockelbank also stated that Respondent was cooperative and collaborative when they compared lesson plans with one another. Caprio taught at Frontier since it opened in 2001. She found Respondent to be on time and was always prepared to work with students. She promptly got started with the students and seemed to be ready to work with them. Caprio never had any issues with Respondent in her classroom. Caprio stated she did not find any issues with a teacher interrupting her lesson for assistance with a student. In her view, it was appropriate for a "push in" teacher to ask for her help with a student. Jennifer Eddy taught at Frontier for 13 years. Eddy observed Respondent work with her students. There was nothing that Respondent did while she was teaching in the same room that disturbed her or kept her from doing her job, nor caused her concern for the well-being of Eddy's students while they were taught by Respondent. Eddy thought that Respondent's one-on-one instruction seemed appropriate, collaborative, positive, helpful, and beneficial to the students. Catherine Burda is a 14-year veteran teacher at Frontier. She observed Respondent work hard and well with one of her students and felt she learned a lot from Respondent. Respondent had a good relationship with her students and came prepared each day. Burda wrote a positive and praising email to the principal regarding Respondent's work. Resp. Ex. 16. Burda appreciated that Respondent always spoke honestly and freely with her. Karen Lundgren worked with Respondent at H.L. Johnson and considered her to be a good colleague. Lundgren worked closely with Respondent, who was cooperative, collegial, and friendly. Respondent got along with students and taught them well. She acted professional and caring towards both students and colleagues. Smyrna Daumec, an 18-year teacher, taught with Respondent at H.L. Johnson. She found Respondent to be a good colleague because Respondent would contribute ideas on how they could work together and they shared lesson plans. Notably, she witnessed Respondent having professional disagreements with colleagues, but none of those professional disagreements adversely impacted her ability to teach. Respondent knew the material that she was teaching and was a cooperative coworker. Respondent was kind to the students and not belittling or mean. Parent S.S. had a daughter in Respondent's third- grade, gifted math class at H.L. Johnson. Her child learned and made progress in Respondent's class. Respondent remains her favorite teacher to this day. Her child learned and achieved in Respondent's class. Respondent consistently kept S.S. updated on her child's progress through email or notes in the agenda. S.S. never had any problems with Respondent, and her daughter had a good year of school when she was with Turnbull. She observed that Respondent interacted warmly with students and parents and acted very friendly and cheerful. Parent C.B. knew Respondent as a teacher for her two children at H.L. Johnson. When her children had Respondent as a teacher, they never acted or manifested a desire not to go to school. Respondent kept her updated on her children's progress, and she had open communication with Respondent while she was the teacher for both of her children. She found Respondent to be volunteering and helpful. She saw Respondent interact with other children in addition to her own when she was on campus and did not observe anything that was negative in those interactions. Her children had good years in school when they were in Respondent's class and seemed happy with her as a teacher, despite Respondent being a strict teacher. As a parent, C.B. was very happy with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order withdrawing the proposed five-day suspension and issuing instead a letter of reprimand to Respondent regarding her conduct during the investigatory interview with her school principal. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 9th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and "unacceptable"; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.1 A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory" and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) and a follow-up, "for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFAE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teacher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. Within 14 days after the end of probation, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators.2 The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "I.A.1." Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.3 Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.4 B. At all times material to this case, Respondent Sergio H. Escalona ("Escalona") was a teacher in the District. From 2000 until May 19, 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Escalona was a science teacher at Miami Springs Senior High School ("Miami Springs"), a typical high school in the District. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Escalona in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator November 5, 2003 Carlos M. del Cuadro, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs December 2, 2003 Mr. del Cuadro January 16, 2004 Douglas P. Rodriguez, Principal, Miami Springs February 17, 2004 Deborah Carter, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs April 5, 2004 Mr. Rodriguez The Board contends that Escalona failed all five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation (including the first), the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Escalona had failed: IA1 IA2 IB1 IB3 IE3 IF1 IF2 IIA1 IIA3 IIB2 IIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x 01-16-04 x x x 02-17-04 x x x x 04-05-04 x x x IID1 IID3 IID4 IIE1 IIE2 IIE5 IIIA1 IIIA3 IIIB1 IIIB3 IIIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x 01-16-04 x x 02-17-04 x 04-05-04 x x x x x IVA3 IVA 5 IVA6 IVB1 IVB2 IVB 3 IVC2 IVD1 IVD3 IVD6 IVE2 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x 02-17-04 x x x x x 04-05-04 x ? x ? x ? x x IVE4 VA1 VA4 VB1 VB2 VC1 VIA2 VIB1 VIB3 VIC2 VIC4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x x 02-17-04 04-05-04 x ? ? ? x ? x x Because Mr. del Cuadro identified 10 performance deficiencies on December 2, 2003, Escalona was placed on performance probation, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Mr. Rodriguez held a CFR on December 9, 2004, to review with Escalona the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Escalona was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), dated December 9, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Mr. Rodriguez charged Escalona with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: II.B.4, II.E.5, III.B.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.1, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, and VI.A.2. (These 10 indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Escalona was given a PIP, and a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. Following the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, based on which Mr. Rodriguez identified 24 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Mr. Rodriguez notified the superintendent that Escalona had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Escalona's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Mr. Rodriguez's recommendation on April 12, 2004, and shortly thereafter notified Escalona of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Escalona's employment contract. On May 19, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. C. Of the four evaluations "for the record," the two that were conducted during Escalona's probation (on January 16, 2004, and February 17, 2004) are presently relevant mainly to establish that the proper procedure was followed——a matter that is not genuinely disputed. The substance of these probationary evaluations cannot affect the outcome here because even if Escalona's performance had been perfect during probation, Mr. Rodriguez nevertheless found deficiencies during the post- probation, confirmatory evaluation, which is the only one probative of the dispositive question: Had Escalona corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation? In view of the ultimate issue, the evaluation of December 2, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the 10 "noted performance deficiencies" that Escalona needed to correct. For reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Board cannot terminate Escalona's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation; rather, it must focus exclusively on those 10 particular deficiencies which Escalona was given 90 calendar days to correct. Thus, stated more precisely, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the 10 specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Escalona on December 9, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. As it happened, Mr. Rodriguez determined, as a result of the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, that Escalona had corrected three of the 10 noted performance deficiencies, for Mr. Rodriguez gave Escalona a passing grade on the indicators II.B.4, II.E.5, and III.B.3. The remaining seven deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "?" symbol. It is to these seven allegedly uncorrected deficiencies that our attention now must turn. The Board contends, based on Mr. Rodriguez's confirmatory evaluation of April 5, 2004, that Escalona was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: 5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. 1: Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. IV.D.1: Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. V.A.1: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. 4: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. 1: A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. VI.A.2: Learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks is monitored. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Escalona failed adequately to perform the seven indicators just mentioned——consists of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. Mr. Rodriguez, who had observed Escalona in the classroom for 50 minutes that day, recounted at final hearing what he had seen as follows: Again, there were students that were simply not engaged at all in learning. For example, there was a student that put his head down at a particular time. He slept for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Escalona never addressed the student, never redirected the learning, never tried to engage that student. Overall the students continued to pass notes in class. The students simply——there was really no plan at all. That was get up, give a lecture. Kids were not paying attention. No redirection for student learning. Questions again very basic. Most of the questions had no response from the students. And [they] just seemed very disinterested, the students did, and the lesson was just not acceptable. Final Hearing Transcript at 103-04. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Escalona's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing testimony, for that is all the evidence there is on the subject.5 Mr. Rodriguez did not explain how he had applied the seven indicators quoted above to his classroom observations of Escalona to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. The seven indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not standards upon which to base a judgment, but rather factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. If a particular indicator-condition (e.g. the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." The indicator-conditions are plainly not objective historical facts; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions" of law and fact. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Mr. Rodriguez observed on April 5, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Escalona's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the "[t]eaching and learning activities [had been] appropriate for the complexity of the learning context" (Indicator IV.B.1), or whether the questions asked adequately "enable[d] thinking" (Indicator V.B.1).6 This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently—— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be standards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to monitor learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks (Indicator VI.A.2) or to create opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive level (Indicator IV.D.1).7 Other standards might be definitional. For example, to determine whether teaching and learning activities are appropriate (Indicator IV.B.1) practically demands a definition of the term "appropriate" for this context. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether a question enables thinking (Indicator V.B.1). However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- conditions are present or absent in a given situation——and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the seven relevant indicators were extant in Escalona's classroom on April 5, 2004, or not. E. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Escalona had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. The only evidence of Escalona's post- probation teaching performance consists of Mr. Rogriguez's testimony about his observation of Escalona for 50 minutes on April 5, 2004, which was quoted above. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony gives the undersigned little to work with. His observations can be boiled down to four major points, none of which flatters Escalona: (a) Escalona lectured, and the students, who seemed disinterested, did not pay attention——some even passed notes; (b) Escalona asked "very basic" questions, most of which elicited "no response"; (c) one student slept for 15 minutes, and Escalona left him alone; (d) the lesson was "just not acceptable." On inspection, these points are much less helpful than they might at first blush appear. One of them——point (d)——is merely a conclusion which invades the undersigned's province as the fact-finder; accordingly, it has been given practically no weight. The only facts offered in support of the conclusions, in point (a), that the students "seemed" disinterested and were "not paying attention" to Escalona's lecture is the testimony that some students passed notes, and some (many?) did not answer the teacher's questions. But this is a rather thin foundation upon which to rest a conclusion that the students were bored because Escalona's teaching was poor. And even if they were (or looked) bored, is it not fairly common for teenaged high-school students to be (or appear) bored in school, for reasons unrelated to the teacher's performance? There is no evidence whatsoever that student boredom (or note passing or non- responsiveness) features only in the classrooms of poorly performing teachers. As for the supposedly "basic" nature of Escalona's questions, see point (b), the undersigned cannot give Mr. Rodriguez's testimony much weight, because there is no evidence as to what the questions actually were or why they were so very basic. Finally, regarding point (c), the fact that a student slept during class is, to be sure, somewhat damaging to Escalona, inasmuch as students should not generally be napping in class, but without additional information about the student (who might have been sick, for all the undersigned knows) and the surrounding circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that the sleeping student is res ipsa loquitur on the quality of of Escalona's teaching performance. There is certainly no evidence that students doze only in the bad teachers' classes. More important, however, than the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Escalona's classroom that day, which he lacks, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Escalona's performance, to determine whether the indicator- conditions were met or not. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Escalona.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Florida Statutes. When a teacher contests a superintendent's recommendation of dismissal, as here, the ensuing hearing must be conducted "in accordance with chapter 120." See § 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Fla. Stat. A "chapter 120 proceeding [entails] a hearing de novo intended to 'formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1993)(quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). Thus, the Board's burden in this case was not merely to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators sincerely believed, after conducting a legally sufficient assessment, that Young's performance was deficient, nor even to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators' judgment was factually and legally tenable. Rather, the Board's burden was to persuade the undersigned himself to find, independently, that Young's performance was deficient. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate a teacher's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the Board was required to prove the alleged grounds for Escalona's dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Bd. of Lake County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). B. Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, which governs the process for evaluating teachers, provides in full as follows: 1012.34 Assessment procedures and criteria.-- For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The Department of Education must approve each district's instructional personnel assessment system. The following conditions must be considered in the design of the district's instructional personnel assessment system: The system must be designed to support district and school level improvement plans. The system must provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel. The system must include a mechanism to give parents an opportunity to provide input into employee performance assessments when appropriate. In addition to addressing generic teaching competencies, districts must determine those teaching fields for which special procedures and criteria will be developed. Each district school board may establish a peer assistance process. The plan may provide a mechanism for assistance of persons who are placed on performance probation as well as offer assistance to other employees who request it. The district school board shall provide training programs that are based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Education to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements: An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program. The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following: Performance of students. Ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field. Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom. Ability to evaluate instructional needs. Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement. Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board. All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place. The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements: 1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. 2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies. b. Within 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. The hearing shall be conducted at the district school board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the district school board within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain the district school superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment; or A hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal in accordance with chapter 120. The recommendation of the administrative law judge shall be made to the district school board. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain or change the administrative law judge's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. The district school superintendent shall notify the department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and who have been given written notice by the district that their employment is being terminated or is not being renewed or that the district school board intends to terminate, or not renew, their employment. The department shall conduct an investigation to determine whether action shall be taken against the certificateholder pursuant to s. 1012.795(1)(b). The district school superintendent shall develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. The use of the assessment and evaluation procedures shall be considered as part of the annual assessment of the administrator's performance. The system must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrator's performance assessment, when appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to continued employment beyond the term of his or her contract. The district school board shall establish a procedure annually reviewing instructional personnel assessment systems to determine compliance with this section. All substantial revisions to an approved system must be reviewed and approved by the district school board before being used to assess instructional personnel. Upon request by a school district, the department shall provide assistance in developing, improving, or reviewing an assessment system. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, that establish uniform guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of district procedures for the annual assessment of instructional personnel and that include criteria for evaluating professional performance. (Underlining and italics added). Under Section 1012.34(3), school districts must establish a primarily student performance-based procedure (or system) for assessing the performance of teachers. In other words, the method of accomplishing the assessment must be tailored to meet the goal of forming evaluative judgments about teachers' performance based mainly on the performance of their students. In clear terms, then, the legislature has announced that the primary (though not exclusive)8 indicator of whether a teacher is doing a good job is the performance of his students. If a teacher's students are succeeding, then, whatever he is doing, the teacher is likely (though not necessarily) performing his duties satisfactorily. It is plainly the legislature's belief that if we do not know how the teacher's students are performing, then we cannot make a valid judgment as to whether the teacher is performing his duties satisfactorily.9 The statute further mandates that, in assessing teachers, indicators of student performance——which performance is assessed annually as specified in Section 1008.22——must be the primarily-used data. (In contrast, evaluators are permitted, but not required, to make use of peer reviews in assessing teacher performance.) Section 1008.22, which is referenced specifically in Section 1012.34(3)(a), requires that school districts participate in a statewide assessment program, the centerpiece of which is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). See § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The FCAT is a standardized test that is administered annually to students in grades three through 10. Id. Section 1008.22 is not concerned only with the FCAT, however. Subsection (7), for example, provides as follows: (7) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.--Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. Thus, the school districts are charged with developing their own local assessment tools, to fill in the gaps left open by the statewide FCAT testing program. Section 1008.22(5) provides additionally that "[s]tudent performance data shall be used in . . . evaluation of instructional personnel[.]" Section 1012.34(3)(a) prescribes two and only two permissible measures of student performance for use in evaluating teachers: (a) the statewide FCAT assessments and (b) the gap-filling local assessments, both of which measures are required under Section 1008.22. It is clear that Sections 1012.34(3) and 1008.22 have at least one subject in common, namely, student performance-based assessment of teachers. Being in pari materia in this regard, Sections 1012.34 and 1008.22 must be construed so as to further the common goal. See, e.g., Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1993)(separate statutory provisions that are in pari materia should be construed to express a unified legislative purpose); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Com'n, 643 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(statutes on same subject and having same general purpose should be construed in pari materia). When the requirements of Section 1012.34(3) are read together with Section 1008.22, several conclusions are inescapable. First, FCAT scores must be the primary source of information used in evaluating any teacher who teaches an FCAT- covered subject to students in grades three through 10. Second, school districts must develop, and annually administer, local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT. Third, student performance data derived from local assessments must be the primary source of information used in evaluating teachers whose subjects are not covered on the FCAT and/or whose students do not take the FCAT. The absence of evidence in the record concerning the performance of Escalona's students either on the FCAT or on local assessments, as appropriate, see endnote 5, supra, deprives the undersigned of information that the legislature has deemed essential to the evaluation of a teacher's performance. Having neither state nor local assessments to review, the undersigned cannot find that Escalona's performance was deficient in the first place, much less whether he corrected the alleged performance deficiencies in accordance with Section 1012.34(3)(d). Without such findings, the Board cannot dismiss Escalona for failure to correct noted performance deficiencies. C. It was stated in the Findings of Fact above that the Board can terminate Escalona's employment only if, based on an assessment of his performance as of the two-week period following the 90 calendar days of probation, the teacher had failed to correct the particular performance deficiencies of which he had been formally notified in writing prior to probation; other alleged deficiencies, whether observed during probation or thereafter, cannot be relied upon in support of a decision to dismiss Escalona. Standing behind this observation is Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The pertinent statutory language instructs that a teacher whose performance has been deemed unsatisfactory must be provided a written "notice of unsatisfactory performance," which notice shall include a description of "such unsatisfactory performance" plus recommendations for improvement in the "specific areas of unsatisfactory performance." The statute then specifies that the teacher must be allowed 90 calendar days "following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance" to correct "the noted performance deficiencies." Clearly, the "noted performance deficiencies" are the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance described in the notice of unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the statute mandates that the teacher shall be assessed within two weeks after the end of probation to determine whether "the performance deficiencies" have been corrected. It is clear, again, that "the performance deficiencies" are "the noted performance deficiencies" described in the written notice of unsatisfactory performance. See § 1012.34(3)(d)1. & 2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The reason why a decision to terminate a poorly performing teacher must be based solely on the specific performance deficiencies described in the pre-probation notice of unsatisfactory performance is plain: allowing the school district to rely on subsequently observed deficiencies would defeat the teacher's unambiguous statutory right to have 90 post-notice calendar days in which to correct the noted performance deficiencies that triggered probation in the first place. This case exemplifies the problem posed by post-notice deficiencies. The notice of unsatisfactory performance (the Summary) that gave rise to Escalona's probation, which was based on Mr. del Cuadro's evaluation of December 2, 2003, charged the teacher with 10 specific performance deficiencies. By February 17, 2004, when Ms. Carter formally observed Escalona for the last time before the end of probation, Escalona had corrected all but one (Indicator IV.A.5) of the noted performance deficiencies——suggesting that he had made significant improvement. Unfortunately for Escalona, however, Ms. Carter believed that the teacher had exhibited nine deficiencies besides the noted performance deficiencies, with the net result that, near the end of probation, Escalona still had 10 deficiencies. Of these nine post-notice deficiencies, four (Indicators I.F.1, I.F.2, II.A.1, and IV.B.3) were recorded for the first time ever on February 17, 2004. Obviously, Escalona was not given 90 days to correct these four alleged deficiencies. Yet another three of the post-notice deficiencies reported by Ms. Carter (Indicators I.A.1, IV.A.6, and IV.B.2) had not been seen since Mr. Cuadro's initial evaluation of November 5, 2003. This initial evaluation, being "not of record," cannot count as a notice of unsatisfactory performance to Escalona. Hence he was not given 90 days to correct these three alleged deficiencies. For that matter, the remaining two post-notice deficiencies alleged to exist on February 17, 2004—— Indicators II.D.4 and IV.A.3——had not been observed, post- notice, until January 16, 2004, which means that Escalona did not have 90 days to correct them, either. For the above reasons, when assessing whether, in fact, Escalona had corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period following probation, the undersigned focused, as he was required to do, exclusively on the 10 deficiencies described in the Summary, seven of which were alleged not to have been timely corrected. Having determined as a matter of fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove these seven alleged deficiencies existed or persisted, it must be concluded that the Board has failed to carry its burden of establishing the alleged factual grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Escalona of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Escalona be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Escalona back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, 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 23rd day of November, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Delores V Crumiel, held Teaching Certificate No. 342743 issued by the State Department of Education. The certificate covers the specialization of elementary education, grades one through six. During school years 1979-80 through 1984-85, Crumiel was employed by petitioner, School Board of Dade County, as a tenured elementary teacher at West Little River Elementary School (WIRES) in Miami, Florida. Crumiel received a bachelor of science degree in elementary education from Florida Memorial College. Except for a leave of absence during school year 1982-83 due to the death of her husband, she was employed as an elementary school teacher in Dade County for the eleven years immediately preceding her dismissal. WLRES is located in a low socio-economic area of Miami. It has qualified as a Chapter I school, which means it receives federal monies to provide supplementary instruction in basic skills for low-achieving students from the low-income areas of the community. Under this program, instruction is focused on basic skills such as mathematics, language arts and reading, and the teacher has no responsibility in content areas such as science, social studies and health. However, in order to compensate for the lack of content areas, the Chapter I teacher is required to interweave topics from the missing content areas into language lessons in order to give a "language experience" to the students. The language experience is an important part of the federal program. The size of Chapter I classes at WLRES is roughly half of a normal class, and typically numbered from thirteen to fifteen students. It was established that a Chapter I class is easier to teach than a class in the regular school program because of smaller classroom size, less discipline problems, and easier subject matter content. The lesson plans are also easier to prepare than regular lesson plans because only language arts and mathematics are included in Chapter I plans. During the relevant time period, Crumiel was assigned to teach either fifth or sixth grades. By virtue of required classroom observations being conducted by supervisory personnel, Crumiel was found to be deficient in classroom management and teacher-student relationships in school year 1979-1980, deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment technique in school year 1983-84, and deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques in school year 1984-85. After Crumiel declined a School Board offer to relinquish her teaching job, and accept a teaching aide position, the School Board voted on October 21, 1985, to dismiss Crumiel from employment with the Board on the basis of incompetency. This action confirmed her earlier suspension effective October 2, 1985, and she has remained suspended without pay since that date. The Board's action prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, thereafter filed an administrative complaint seeking revocation of Crumiel's teaching certificate on the same ground. The two matters have been consolidated for hearing purposes. School Year 1979-1980 During school year 1979-1980, Crumiel was assigned to teach in a fifth grade classroom at WLRES. At that time Dr. John Johnson, II was her principal. Crumiel was formally observed by Johnson on December 4, 1979 and February 26, 1980 when he made routine visits to her classroom to evaluate her teaching skills. On these two visits Johnson found Crumiel to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and teacher- student relationships. More specifically, Johnson observed hostility and screaming in the classroom, and found her "upset, emotional and loud." He described her as being in "total disarray." He also felt the students were "acting out." Because of this, she received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Johnson assigned a systems aide to work with Crumiel in the classroom. Crumiel was also assigned to work with a master teacher during the following summer (1981). The results of this effort are noted in a subsequent finding. Dr. Johnson gave her written prescriptions to help improve her performance and asked that the assistant principal work with Crumiel. A prescription is a course of action that must be carried out by a teacher in order to remediate a deficient performance. This type of assistance continued until Johnson departed WLRES in 1983. During this period of time Johnson received numerous complaints regarding Crumiel's classroom management from other teachers, and had to go to her class on a number of occasions to calm the students. During school year 1979-80, a first-year teacher taught in the classroom adjacent to respondent's classroom. She confirmed that Crumiel's classroom discipline was very poor, and that the students were noisy and disruptive. In addition, even though Crumiel was supposedly a "seasoned" teacher, the first year teacher frequently found Crumiel seeking assistance from her regarding subject matter content and teaching techniques. Despite the unacceptable annual evaluation given Crumiel in school year 1979-80, Johnson continued to recommend Crumiel for employment. However, he noted that Crumiel's performance was going "down" as time progressed, and except for the fact that he was leaving WLRES in 1983, he would have recommended she be dismissed from the school system. C. 1980-83 During the summer of 1981, Dr. Johnson assigned crumiel to team teach with Alstene McKinney, a master teacher, so that Crumiel could learn some ideas and techniques from McKinney. They taught two regular size classes of twenty-five to thirty Chapter I students in a pod. A pod is a free standing building utilizing the open space concept where a number of classrooms are separated by partitions. At least two classrooms would share common bathrooms and water fountain facilities. McKinney observed that Crumiel has a problem with classroom management, and that her class was always noisy. On various occasions McKinney had to stop teaching and ask Crumiel's students to quiet down. On one occasion McKinney observed Crumiel instructing her students that a quarter past the hour meant 25 minutes after the hour. When she later mentioned it to Crumiel, Crumiel corrected herself and said, "I meant 20 minutes after." Crumiel's husband unexpectedly died on September 1, 1982, from injuries received in an accident. By the following spring, respondent has accumulated some forty-five days of absences, and her absences were affecting her students' progress. In addition, she developed a pattern of calling in the evening and informing the school secretary htat she would report to work the next day, and then in the morning, calling to inform the school she would be absent. At that time, Dr. Johnson referred Crumiel to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in an effort to aid her in coping with her family crisis. The EAP is a program designed to assist teachers having academic, personal or psychological problems. Crumiel eventually took a leave of absence April, 1983 for the remainder of the school year. She was medically cleared to return to work in August, 1983. The medical clearance noted that Crumiel did not have any medical condition that would impair or restrict her performance as a teacher. School Year 1983-84 Respondent returned to WLRES on August 24, 1983. She was given a Chapter 1 fifth grade classroom assignment on that day by her new principal, Glenda Harris. The class was to be taught in an air-conditioned pod to be shared with two other teachers, Pauline Maloof and Merrial Daniels Radford. There were a total of forty-five students assigned to the entire pod. Although the adequacy of the size of the room was questioned by one of respondent's witnesses, it is found that respondent's classroom contained adequate space for the number of children being taught. In fact, in the prior year, two teachers and sixty-four students had shared the same space. Moreover, the pod concept is common in the Dade County school system, and even today, Crumiel's former pod classroom is still set up structurally in the same manner. During this school year, Chapter I classes were restricted to a maximum of sixteen students, with the average being fifteen students. This compared with a regular class that would have from twenty-eight to thirty-five students. An essential component in the Chapter I program is the oral language development segment. Through this component, the teacher gives the children a better example of speech patterns so that students who are not proficient in the use of standard English become aware of the standard patterns and usage. This enables the students to use appropriate language when entering the job market. To improve and enhance the teacher skills in the foregoing area, all Chapter I teachers, including Crumiel, received five in-service training sessions during the school year. On November 16, 1983, Harris visited Crumiel's classroom to make a formal observation of respondent's teaching. Harris was so stunned by what she observed that she chose not to record her visit as an official observation. During the visit, it became apparent to Harris that Crumiel had no grasp of Chapter I requirements. More specifically, Crumiel was not interweaving the content areas of science and social studies into the language experience. She confused the students by accepting incorrect answers as correct and vice-versa. Crumiel also demonstrated a lack of basic English skills, making such statements as, "Is there anyone who do not understand?"; "I am sorry, boys and girls--my book do not have . . . "; "Why you think it's 'drink?'"; and "Who do not understand?" In addition, Crumiel was using an outdated reading technique (round-robin reading), and did not use the diagnostic prescriptive approach by setting up reading groups within her class. It was evident to Harris that Crumiel had not read the lesson prior to teaching the children, and was totally unprepared. Because of this, the children in Crumiel's classroom did not receive a minimal educational experience on that day. Harris asked Crumiel where her teaching aid materials were, and was told by Crumiel they were in the bottom of one of her desk drawers. Crumiel also acknowledged that she had not read them. Harris returned for a formal observation of Crumiel on November 21, 1983. She found respondent's performance to be no better than it was on November 16, 1983. It was evident that respondent had not read the lesson prior to teaching the class and did not understand the point of the story being told. The students were also having great difficulty reading. Crumiel's interpretive skills were very poor and she still accepted incorrect responses from the students and vice-versa. For example, when one student gave an example of a compound word, charcoal, Crumiel told the student that it was incorrect because "char" was not a word. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "jack-o-later" for "jack-o-lantern," "likeded" for "liked," and "terranium" for "terrarium." She also used very poor grammatical structure. Based upon her observations, Harris rated Crumiel as being unacceptable with specific deficiencies in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She also concluded that the students failed to receive a minimal educational experience. After the observation was concluded, Harris and Crumiel discussed the problems Harris had noted that day. Crumiel acknowledged she had done poorly, and asked that Harris observe her another day when she would be better prepared. Harris again formally observed respondent on November 29, 1983. She was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Harris noted that Crumiel had not set up a reading program even though this is required in both regular and Chapter I classes. In addition, respondent's lesson plans merely listed page numbers rather than activities, materials and evaluations. Further, while she had grouped the children, she had not given them the appropriate reading books based upon their diagnostic tests. Crumiel had also failed to preview the lesson prior to teaching the class. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "shevel" for "shovel," and "depenable" for "dependable," and displayed poor grammar throughout the instruction. Her subject verb agreement was virtually nonexistent and she misused possessives. For example, Crumiel stated, "This machine what is called the steam shovel. . . what is the little boy name? . . . Yes it does scoops up dirt." She was unable to define a steam shovel for a student until she looked the term up in a dictionary. She continued to accept incorrect information from the children as correct and vice-versa. Finally, Harris found respondent's techniques of instruction unacceptable since Crumiel merely read directions to the class. After the observation was completed, Harris met with Crumiel and discussed all areas of her evaluation. On December 8, 1983, a conference-for-the-record was attended by Harris, Crumiel and Jack Grayson, the assistant principal at WLRES. At that time, the observations and visits of November 16, 21 and 29, 1983 were discussed. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Harris and Grayson devised a prescription designed to meet Crumiel's needs. In this case, the prescriptive plan required Crumiel to enroll in a basic English course and a Methods and Materials course in the teaching of reading. She was told to do this by the second semester of the school year. She was also told that Grayson would give her assistance with her reading plans, and visit her classroom on December 13, 1983 to become more familiar with her classroom style. In addition, Harris offered to make available further training in the Dade County Diagnostic Prescriptive Reading System. She was asked to set up a schedule of visitations to other classrooms so that she might learn teaching techniques from other faculty members. Finally, Crumiel was given a set of procedures to be used in critiquing her own plans and presentations of lessons. After the conference, Harris and Grayson spent an hour- and-a-half showing Crumiel how to set up her reading program. They were surprised when they found that respondent, despite having taught for eight or nine years in the system, did not know how to do this. Respondent was next formally observed by Grayson during a lesson on invitations on December 13, 1983. Respondent was given an overall rating of acceptable. However, Grayson later discovered that another teacher, Merria1 Radford Daniels, had actually written the lesson plan, and had demonstrated to Crumiel how to teach that day's class. She did so after Crumiel came to her seeking help before Grayson's visit. Daniels had made displays for Crumiel, and had written the lesson on Crumiel's blackboard with the key words to be used. She also demonstrated the lesson in Crumiel's presence. Daniels then had Crumiel demonstrate the lesson for her, and told respondent to go home and practice in front of a mirror. Respondent admitted this to Grayson. Respondent was informally visited by Harris on January 23, 1984. Although the students were supposed to be in their seats and ready to begin at 8:30 a.m., Harris found them up and out of their seats at 8:58 a.m. when she entered the classroom. Crumiel had not prepared a lesson for that particular class, so she taught a lesson originally scheduled for another time. Even so, she merely read instructions and handed out materials. Harris found no evidence that respondent was carrying out the prescription previously given to her on December 8, 1983. She concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience that day. Respondent was again formally observed by Harris on June 5, 1984. At that time she was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Although respondent had developed lesson plans for the class, the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning. More importantly, Harris did not see any progress by Crumiel since she had been given the prescription on December 8, 1983. She found Crumiel still reading directions to the students rather than teaching them subject matter content. A large part of the classroom instruction was taken up by students performing meaningless exercises. Respondent still lacked a basic understanding of the subject matter, abbreviations. This was evidenced by respondent's inability to answer questions from students indicating when abbreviations are to be used. For example, she could not answer why the abbreviation for doctor is capitalized, or why the abbreviation for ounces is oz. rather than oun. She still continued to use improper English such as "Be sure your name and date is on all your papers." On June 6, 1984, Grayson revisited Crumiel's classroom to conduct a formal evaluation of Crumiel's mathematics class. Grayson rated respondent's performance as unacceptable with a specific deficiency in the area of techniques of instruction. He found the lesson too simple for the students and therefore a waste of their time. Crumiel's instructions and directions were confusing, and she was unable to clarify them for the students' benefit. Crumiel was again observed by Harris on June 8, 1984. Respondent had asked Harris to return after her prior visit on June 5 because she had learned something in a class she was taking and wanted to demonstrate it to Harris. After observing respondent Harris rated her as unacceptable with deficiencies in the areas of planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She was found barely acceptable in classroom management. Although Crumiel had a lesson plan, it was not effective and was inappropriate for students of the fifth grade level. Moreover, her classroom management appeared to Harris to be staged and practiced as in a performance. At hearing, Crumiel contended the pod was a poor environment in which to teach, and stated her class was frequently disrupted by outside students coming in to her area to use the restroom and drinking fountain. However, during school year 1983-84, Crumiel voiced no complaints to the administration about teaching in a pod, or that she experienced the disruptions she described. Indeed, no such disruptive activity was ever observed by the administrators who made classroom evaluations or by other teachers in the pod. If such activity did occur, it was only after someone inside the classroom unlocked the door since Crumiel's door was always kept locked. During the school year, the disruptive children were always evenly distributed between Maloof, Daniels, and Crumiel. After Harris became aware of Crumiel's classroom management problems, several students with behavioral problems were reassigned from Crumiel's classroom to that of Maloof and Daniels. Moreover, Crumiel received the highest academic level in the three groups. On her annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas or preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. However, Harris refrained from recommending Crumiel for termination, choosing instead to write another, more detailed prescription in the hope that Crumiel could improve over the summer. On June 21, 1984, another conference-for-the-record was held by Harris, Crumiel, Grayson and a teacher union representative. At that time, Harris outlined the prescription and asked that Crumiel continue with the EAP. Crumiel had previously participated in the EAP but had ceased attending, Crumiel was told to prepare her lesson plans in behavioral terms and was given various reading materials to help her with this task. She was further given an excerpt from the teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) manual on techniques of instruction. In addition, she was directed to take certain courses offered by the Teacher Education center (TEC) to assist her in deficient areas. However, Harris suggested that the outside course work could be postponed until the fall so that she could spend a restful summer. Finally Crumiel was told she would be informally observed during the first nine weeks of the following school year, and formally observed in the second nine week period. This information was incorrect since any teacher on prescription must be formally observed during the first six weeks of the next school year. In conjunction with the EAP respondent began individual psychotherapy and supportive counseling with a licensed clinical psychologist that summer. She remained his patient until September, 1985. During school year 1983-84, Crumiel received help from Maloof and Daniels, who shared her pod. Maloof gave Crumiel assistance in grouping her children, shared materials with her, and made various suggestions on how to improve her teaching techniques. However, when they discussed educational topics, Crumiel did not seem to understand the subject matter. Daniels showed respondent how to order materials for the different levels of students. Finally, a reading specialist gave a workshop session in October, 1983 that addressed the procedures for pre- testing, post-testing and leveling students. Crumiel attended this workshop. School Year 1984-85 Beginning in the 1984-85 school year, WLRES implemented the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of teacher observation for all teachers. In the prior year, only annual contract teachers were under the TADS observation scheme. Since Crumiel was under a continuing contract, she was not subject to this observation method prior to school year 1984-85. Under the TADS system, teachers are required to have objectives, activities and a way of monitoring student progress in and through their lesson plans. At the beginning of the school year, Harris moved Crumiel to Room 212, a self-contained classroom. This move was prompted by complaints about noisy, disruptive students in Crumiel's classroom from the teachers who shared the pod with Crumiel during the prior year. Room 212 contained approximately the same amount of space that Crumiel previously had in the pod, but the classroom was not air-conditioned. However, around two- thirds of the teachers in the school did not have air- conditioning at that time. Harris also changed respondent's grade level from grade five to grade six. This was done to relieve her of the additional pressures of preparing the students for the state assessment test (SAT). WLRES had been adjudged deficient during the previous school year, and fifth grade classes were scheduled to be tested on the SAT in the first nine weeks of the school year. Crumiel protested her reassignment to a higher grade level and told Harris that sixth grade mathematics were beyond her teaching ability. However, Harris reminded Crumiel that she was certified for the sixth grade, and that the chances of her actually teaching sixth grade math in a Chapter I class were remote. Children were assigned to respondent in very much the same manner that they had been assigned the previous year. The administration made certain that slow learners and students exhibiting behavior problems were evenly distributed among the various teachers. Harris visited respondent's classroom on September 20, 1984 to conduct an informal observation. Respondent's lesson plans were not written in behavioral terms as directed by her June 21 prescription. Further, she had not grouped the children or pretested them in reading. Harris also found Crumiel's presentation of subject matter and classroom management skills unacceptable. Harris concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience. Harris met with respondent following the informal visit. At that meeting, Harris reviewed Crumiel's prescription and the efforts being made by Crumiel to fulfill its goals. Harris discovered that respondent had "forgotten" to inquire about the various courses taught at the Reacher Education Center and displayed an unconcerned attitude towards the requirements of the prescription. She was told by Crumiel that the sixth grade level objectives were too difficult for her, and that she did not know how to write lesson plans in behavioral objectives. Harris then told Crumiel she would visit respondent's classroom on September 25, 1984. Harris also began showing Crumiel how to write objectives in behavioral terms. Harris was unable to visit respondent's classroom on September 25 because respondent called in sick that morning. Crumiel did, however, bring her lesson plans to Harris the following day. Harris found them lacking any behavioral objectives. Harris again encouraged Crumiel to read the material furnished her. Respondent's mathematics class was formally observed by Grayson on October 1, 1984. A formal observation was required at that time since Crumiel was on prescription from the prior year. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not have the items required by the TADS system. In other words, Crumiel had no way to assess her students in order to monitor their progress. Grayson recommended that respondent continue with the prescription given by Harris, and to turn in her lesson plans on a weekly basis for his review. Grayson continued to review those plans until her dismissal some two years later, and to offer suggestions on how they could be improved. During the school year, the teacher occupying the adjacent classroom continually complained about the noise in respondent's room. Because of this, Crumiel was moved to room 206, a larger self-contained classroom which had been recently renovated and filled with new furniture. It was uncontradicted that room 206 was far superior to the other classroom spaces in the building that were used by Chapter I classes. Respondent was formally observed again by Harris on January 23, 1985. Harris found that the children were not receiving a minimal educational experience. Using the TADS system, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessments techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was still using November lessons plans with only the dates changed, and was not using the prescribed plan. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she gave no instruction. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not prepared to begin the lesson. In the area of techniques of instruction, Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because she was not using appropriate methods or differentiated materials, and she failed to use two or more learning styles as required by TADS. Finally Crumiel was found to be deficient in assessment techniques because she failed to use the information given her in the TADS prescription manual. In addition, because her grade book and student folders were not properly maintained, and there was no way to tell what had been taught and tested, or to access the students' improvement. As a result of the January 25 visit, Harris prescribed help for respondent from the TADS prescription manual, which is written on a level that the average teacher can understand. However, Harris did not suggest that Crumiel use the manual after that occasion since Crumiel admitted she was unable to understand the information in the manual. At respondent's request, Harris performed another formal observation on January 29, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Harris also concluded that the students did not receive a minimal educational experience. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not written in conformity with her prescription. She appeared unprepared and wasted classroom time on repetitious, meaningless exercises. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter because she did not understand the lesson she was suppose to be teaching, and told the children that adding an "s" at the end of a verb would make it plural. Crumiel's classroom management was rated unacceptable because the classroom environment was not conducive to learning. Harris found the room unkempt and materials in disorder, and noted that Crumiel did not start the lesson promptly due to a number of unnecessary delays. In the area of techniques of instruction Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because the majority of the materials used were inappropriate for the objectives. Further, the methods of instruction never varied, and respondent did not give consideration to the various learning styles in the classroom. Harris concluded that the materials and methods used often insulted the age level of the students. After the observation was concluded, Harris asked Crumiel to review and study the materials given her in the prior prescription. Crumiel was also told that Eneida Hartner, director of the North Central area, would provide her with additional help. Finally, Harris taught a reading lesson to Crumiel's class in an effort to improve Crumiel's teaching style. While Harris was in the classroom, respondent did relatively well with teacher-student relationships. However, when no administrator was present, respondent could often be heard shouting and cajoling the children to behave. There were instances when children were seen hanging out of the windows and shouting. Respondent was heard telling a student on one occasion, "Sit your black butt down." On February 8, 1985, Harris and Hartner visited respondent's classroom for approximately one hour to informally observe Crumiel. Even though Hartner had designed certain activities for respondent to use that day while teaching, Hartner and Harris concluded there was no teaching in the classroom. They also noted that respondent was not following the diagnostic prescriptive approach which is required of all elementary teachers.. Hartner recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from a Chapter I educational specialist, Pat Kanovsky, who was assigned to help Crumiel with the language experience approach used in Chapter I classes. Hartner also directed a prep specialist, Gwen Bryant, to monitor Crumiel in the areas of basic skills, such as reading, writing and mathematics, and to help respondent in the prescriptive diagnostic approach. She also recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from the assistant principal, department chairman and master teacher, and to make use of certain excerpts from the TADS prescription manual. Bryant visited Crumiel's classroom four times in February 1985 in an attempt to provide her with assistance. On her February 14 visit, Bryant observed that respondent was not using the "RSVP" program in an appropriate manner. This is a program that is used for all children in both Chapter I and regular classes. Bryant also noted that Crumiel had not used her pacemaker chart correctly, and was therefore unable to determine if the children were being taught subject matter at a pace commensurate with their level of ability. On her February 27 visit, Bryant found the students confused and not understanding what they were expected to do in class that day. They were yelling, and many were out of their seats. Respondent was unsuccessful in her efforts to manage behavior. After seeing this, Bryant made a number of suggestions to respondent. She also went over the instructional material and demonstrated how to properly use it. She explained how the students were to be placed and instructed according to their reading levels. Bryant gave further tips on teaching techniques, suggestions on managing classroom behavior and how to properly begin a lesson. On February 11, 1985, Kanovsky spent approximately two hours with Crumiel in an effort to improve Crumiel's lesson plan preparation. Among other things, Kanovsky told respondent that her grammar was inappropriate for use in a Chapter I classroom. Hartner, accompanied by Harris, visited respondent's classroom on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of making an external observation. This type of observation was required since Crumiel had already received two negative evaluations from WLRES administrators. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. She was given an unsatisfactory rating in preparation and planning because she failed to properly include a language experience activity in her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to use poor grammar while teaching. For example, Crumiel made such statements as, "Their eyes be red" and "How do their face look?" Crumiel was found to be deficient in techniques of instruction because the lesson lacked sequence, and she failed to adjust her instruction when she did not get anticipated responses from the students. She also accepted responses from the students without telling them whether they were right or wrong. Further, it did not appear that Crumiel had made use of any of the suggestions regarding teaching techniques given by Bryant on February 27. Finally, respondent was given an unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because a review by Hartner of the students' folders revealed that Crumiel had failed to use the diagnostic prescriptive approaches in reading and mathematics that were required by the Dade County school system. Having formally observed Crumiel, Hartner concluded that respondent's students did not have a meaningful educational experience on March 27, 1985. She further concluded that respondent lacked adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that she lacked the necessary motivational skills necessary to promote oral language development. She also concluded that Crumiel would be unable to teach non-Chapter I students because of the greater number of students and more difficult subject matter in those classes. In short, she found Crumiel unable to teach in any capacity at the elementary school level. In addition to her visits on February 14 and 27, Bryant met with Crumiel on at least two other occasions to help Crumiel understand the diagnostic prescriptive approach to reading. Bryant came away from those meetings with the belief that Crumiel did not understand her directions or the teaching materials. She also concluded the Crumbie was unqualified to teach the sixth grade. An educational specialist, Shirley Fields, also visited respondent's classroom on April 19 and 22, 1985, to discuss the oral language development segment of instruction. On one of her visits, she demonstrated for Crumiel's benefit an actual lesson from the program. Harris returned to respondent's classroom on June 3, 1985 for the purpose of conducting a formal observation. She found no improvement on Crumiel's part and concluded it would be counter-productive to fill out a formal observation form. The subject matter of the class was fractions, and Crumiel appeared to have no knowledge of the subject matter. During the school year, Harris and Grayson received a number of verbal complaints about respondent's classroom management. This was confirmed by testimony from the other teachers and a teacher liaison who frequently observed or heard disruption and noise in respondent's classroom. Harris, Crumiel and a teacher union representative attended a conference-for-the-record on June 12, 1986 to discuss Crumiel's teaching performance. However, it was necessary to discontinue the conference shortly after it was begun because Crumiel lost her composure. The conference was reconvened on June 24, 1985. At that meeting Crumiel rejected an opportunity to be reclassified as a teacher aide, a position that would enable her to continue working with children, but only under the direct supervision of another teacher. On her annual evaluation for 1984-1985, respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques and professional responsibility. In addition, she was not recommended for employment the following school year. Psychological Testing In an effort to find some type of alternative position for Crumiel, the classroom teacher's union recommended that she undergo a battery of psychological tests. In this vein, Crumiel was referred to both a psychiatrist and a psychologist to determine if there was a reason for her poor performance in classroom teaching. The psychologist, Dr. Bradman, had previously seen the patient since June, 1984 in conjunction with the EAP. On June 14 and 18, 1985 Bradman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Test to Crumiel. This test is more commonly known as an IQ or intelligence quotient test. At the time of testing, Bradman found no evidence of depression although Crumiel experienced some mild anxiety. The test segment which would most likely be affected by depression was the Digit Symbol Subtest. However, Crumiel scored within the average range on this segment, and it represented one of her highest scores. Respondent obtained a Full Scale IQ of 74 which is in the borderline range of intelligence. Stated differently, approximately 95% of the people taking the test would achieve a higher score than Crumiel. Bradman found this result to be accurate and valid, and that neither stress or depression could account for Crumiel's low performance. During the course of the two sessions on June 14 and 18, Bradman asked Crumiel a number of questions to test her intellectual skill and capacity. In response to a question asking her to name four men who have been president of the United States since 1950, she responded, "Roosevelt, Lincoln, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt." When questioned further, she added, "Jefferson." Crumiel also told Bradman that there were 48 weeks in a year and that Labor Day is in May. She did not know who Louie Armstrong was, and thought that to get from Chicago to the country of Panama one would travel east. She could not correctly define the words "assemble," "enormous," "conceal," "consume," "regulate," "commence," "domestic," "tranquil" or "ponder." Finally, Crumiel could not answer basic arithmetic questions such as "If raffle tickets cost twenty-five cents each, how much would it cost to buy six tickets?" and "If soft drinks are sold six cans to a package, if you want 36 cans, how many packages must you buy?" Based upon the results of the WAIS-R, Dr. Bradman concluded that respondent was not capable of teaching the higher elementary school grades. However, he was unable to form an opinion as to whether Crumiel could teach the lower grade levels based strictly upon the testing he had performed. On August 29, 1985, Crumiel was also evaluated by a board certified psychiatrist, Dr. Waldo M. Ellison, who was accepted as an expert in that field. He examined Crumiel to ascertain if there was a psychological reason for her dysfunction as an elementary school teacher. Ellison noted that respondent experienced some mild anxiety during the examination but had no depression. Further, he found no evidence of any medical problem or condition. Although Crumiel told Dr. Ellison that mathematics was her favorite subject, she was unable to determine two-thirds of the number sixty. She also could not correctly define the word "motivate," and was unaware of important current events such as the name of the mayor of Miami, or the fact that a hurricane was then approaching the City of Miami. Based upon his evaluation, Ellison concluded that respondent's intellectual deficiencies would interfere with the ability to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Miscellaneous It was the general consensus of all administrators and faculty who observed Crumiel during the relevant time periods that she did not possess the skills necessary to teach elementary students, either at a regular or Chapter I level. More specifically, they found that she lacked an adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that her lack of minimum skills and competency resulted in her students being deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent's own testimony helped confirm the above observations since it was replete with inappropriate English grammar and language. Her lack of fundamental mathematics skills also became apparent during cross-examination by the Board counsel. Respondent's Case Respondent blamed her problems in 1984-85 on her assignment to a small, self-contained classroom without air- conditioning. However, this classroom was approximately the same size as used by two other teachers in the pod, and they did not experience the same difficulty as did Crumiel. Moreover, two- thirds of the faculty at WLRES that year had no air-conditioning. Even so, she was moved to a larger, more modernized classroom during the year but her performance did not improve. Respondent also cited over-aged, disruptive students being assigned to her Chapter I classes as a cause for her classroom management difficulty. But credible testimony established that disruptive students were evenly assigned to all Chapter I teachers, that Crumiel's class had no more than other Chapter I teachers, and several were taken out of her classroom in an effort to aid her performance. Crumiel also contended that her classes were frequently disrupted by students wandering into her classroom from an adjacent physical education area to use the restroom and water fountain facilities. No administrator ever observed this while visiting in her class, and it was shown that even if it did happen, she could have prevented this by refusing to unlock her door. Crumiel further stated that she attempted to follow through with her prescriptions, but that Harris and Grayson were never satisfied. However, independent administrators not associated with WLRES confirmed her failure to follow the prescriptions. Respondent also stated she received a "B" in a college course taken one summer at a local college as evidence of her effort to improve her skills. But a fellow teacher placed this testimony in serious doubt when she testified that Crumiel had taken notes into the final examination and improperly used them while filling out her examination booklet. Through the deposition testimony of Dr. Capp, a psychologist, respondent attempted to refute the IQ score of 74 by showing that she received a score of 99 on the test on February 4, 1986, and that she was functioning within the normal range of intelligence. Dr. Bradman had no scientific explanation for this result, but opined that Crumiel may have studied for the second test, or had remembered the questions from the first time the test was administered. Dr. Capp agreed that this was possible. In any event, the testimony of Drs. Bradman and Ellison is deemed to be more persuasive and credible, and their results and conclusions are found to be more accurate. Union Contract Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade County. That body has a labor contract with the Dade County School Board. Among other things, section 6 of the contract provides in relevant part as follows: Any teacher assigned in any observation category shall be entitled to a prescription of professional growth practices (remedies) which shall include reasonable time-frames for implementation . . .. The function of such practices is to assist the teacher in professional growth . . .. Failure to implement prescribed professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was prescribed shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Article . . .. In the instant case, respondent was placed on prescription at the end of school year 1983-84. Respondent was told she would remain on prescription during the first nine weeks of school year 1984- However, in order to comply with a TADS requirement, a teacher who ends the year on prescription must be observed during the first six weeks in the following school year. To meet this requirement, a formal observation was made by Grayson on October 1, 1985 which was within the time-frame for improvement set forth in the prescription. At that time, Grayson gave a second prescription to Crumiel with instructions that a lesson plan be submitted by each Wednesday. Another formal observation was made by Harris on January 23, 1985, or well after the first and second prescriptive periods. Crumiel was then placed on another prescription effective January 28, 1985 by prescription dated January 23, 1985. Certain prescriptives were ordered to be complied with no later than the next visit. This was followed by a formal observation by Harris on January 29, 1985. When the next formal observation was made by Hartner on March 27, 1985, no time-frames were in effect. All such observations, prescriptive periods and remedies were in conformity with the contract. Even respondent did not file a grievance complaining that the contract was violated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency, and that she be terminated from employment with the School Board of Dade County, and her teaching certificate number 342743 be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Bldg., Suite 301 1450 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Avenue, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel F. Solomon, Esquire 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 215, Knott Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Petitioner (Case No. 85-3673): Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 10 Covered in finding of fact 11 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 14 Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 28 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 28 Covered in finding of fact 29 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 17 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Partially covered in finding of fact 16. Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in findings of fact 18 and 19. Covered in finding of fact 18 Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 32. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 33. Covered in finding of fact 34. Partially covered in finding of fact 34. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 36. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 40. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 42. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 44. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 46. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 47. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 54. Covered in finding of fact 55. Covered in finding of fact 55. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in finding of fact 57. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 60. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 62. Covered in finding of fact 63. Covered in finding of fact 64. Covered in finding of fact 65. Covered in finding of fact 66. Covered in finding of fact 66. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 67. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 57. Petitioner (Case No. 86-1116): Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in findings of fact 16 and 17. Covered in findings of fact 18 and 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in findings of fact 30 and 31. Covered in findings of fact 35 and 36. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Covered in finding of fact 40 except that the observation took place on October 1, 1984. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 29. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in findings of fact 11 and 33. Covered in finding of fact 71. Covered in findings of fact 5, 6, 9 and 10._ Covered in findings of fact 61, 65 and 66. Covered in findings of fact 61-63. Covered in finding of fact 69 Covered in findings of fact 13 and 35. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 70. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Respondent:* Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 45. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 21. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The second sentence is irrelevant since no formal external observation was performed by Hartner on February 8, 1985. Rejected as being irrelevant since no formal observation was conducted on February 8, 1985. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Findings of Fact Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Essentially covered in findings of fact 48-58. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence and irrelevant. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. *Respondent's filing contained two sections entitled "Proposed Findings" and "Findings of Fact."
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent’s professional service contract as a teacher for unsatisfactory performance or incompetence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first employed Respondent on August 23, 1977, in a paraprofessional position as a bilingual tutor. While so employed, Respondent attended Nova University working toward a degree in early education. She earned her degree in 1989 and received a teaching certificate in elementary education and English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Respondent’s first instructional assignment was as an ESOL teacher at the start of the 1989-90 school year. She did not have a classroom, but taught as a pullout teacher. She remained in this position for four years. Respondent was first assigned to a regular classroom in the 1993-94 school year when her ESOL program was terminated. She taught a combined first and second grade class for the 1993- school year and then taught a second grade class for the 1994- school year. On March 1, 1994, Susan Griesinger became the principal of Tice Elementary School. There was little substantive contact between Dr. Griesinger and Respondent during the 1993-94 school year. During the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger twice observed and evaluated Respondent’s classroom performance. The evaluations were satisfactory. The Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of a second-grade mathematics class on November 17, 1994, contains numerous indications that Respondent has adequately organized and presented the instructional material. Student misbehavior was not an issue during the class. Dr. Griesinger concludes the evaluation by writing: “Your enthusiasm is catching! Many concepts in one lesson. Students enjoyed the clocks.” Dr. Griesinger prepared a second Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of another second-grade mathematics class on February 27, 1995. This evaluation is much the same as the first and concludes: “This was a hard concept. I am glad you gave the children actual shapes.” On March 6, 1995, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. Respondent received satisfactory grades in all 40 categories. These grades are “Effective level of performance,” which is the only satisfactory grading option on the form. However, for two categories for which Respondent received satisfactory grades, Dr. Griesinger noted the need for “Focus for development/feedback.” Falling under “Presentation of Subject Matter,” the two categories were “Teaches a systematic process for developing academic values” and “Demonstrates knowledge of subject matter.” The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen has tried very hard this year to reach all students. She has a positive attitude.” Between the preparation of the Performance Assessment and the end of the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger and her assistant principal, Holly Bell, began receiving parent complaints about Respondent. The parents questioned whether Respondent could control her class. When Dr. Griesinger asked Respondent about the complaints, Respondent attributed the problems to a handful of misbehaving students. The following school year, Dr. Griesinger observed Respondent’s teaching more closely to see if there was a problem. Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and the guidance counselor conducted several informal observations of Respondent’s classroom. During the summer, Tice Elementary School had received a grant to hire an outside teaching consultant to train teachers in peer coaching. Dr. Griesinger asked the consultant, Kaye Sutcliff, to observe Respondent and make suggestions. Ms. Sutcliff observed Respondent and suggested that she find other employment. On October 24, 1995, Dr. Griesinger sent a memorandum to Respondent confirming a meeting that they had had the prior day. The memorandum memorializes a concern with the “lack of classroom management we see this year” and states that Respondent is not consistent with discipline. The memorandum also mentions another concern as to how Respondent “present[s] your content to the students.” The memorandum elaborates: Last year I had a difficult time following your lesson when I came in to do your observation. I talked with you about some things you could have done differently. You need to be very specific when you are introducing new concepts. The memorandum concludes that Dr. Griesinger will be doing formal and informal observations to assist Respondent. The memorandum restates that Dr. Griesinger has asked Respondent to work closely with her coach and video and audio tape her lessons to see how she can improve and make her content clearer. The memorandum tells Respondent that Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and Lynn Pottorf will work with Respondent to try to help her. Ms. Pottorf was the Elementary Generalist Coordinator employed in the District office. On January 4, 1996, Dr. Griesinger wrote a memorandum to Dr. Madeline Doran, Director of Personnel, asking that she place Respondent in the Intensive Assistance Program as soon as possible due to “extreme difficulty with classroom management, curriculum content and lesson delivery.” Acting on the advice of Dr. Griesinger and Dr. Doran, Dr. Jerry Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, informed Respondent by letter dated January 24, 1996, that he was placing her in the eight-week Intensive Assistance Program. As part of the program, Dr. Doran formed an assistance team consisting of Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, Ronalee Ashby, and Ms. Pottorf. Ms. Ashby is the District Coordinator of Personnel Services. The purpose of the team is to help the teacher as much as possible through observing her classroom teaching and discussing their findings with the teacher at weekly meetings. The team reviews the teacher’s performance and recommends further action to Dr. Doran. The Intensive Assistance Program informs the teacher that, based on input from the team and Dr. Doran, Petitioner may determine that the teacher’s performance is adequate, extend the Intensive Assistance Program for another eight weeks, recommend reassignment to a more suitable position, withhold recommendation for an annual reappointment, determine that the teacher’s performance is inadequate and recommend dismissal or recommend acceptance of the teacher’s resignation. On January 30, 1996, Ms. Ashby had a meeting with Respondent during which Ms. Ashby explained the Intensive Assistance Program in detail. Respondent completed an interview form for the Intensive Assistance Program. In the form, Respondent noted no particular problems interfering with her teaching. She stated that she was “okay with subj[ect],” but had some problems gathering materials. She mentioned two students out of 20 in her class who presented behavioral problems and one student who presented academic problems. She stated that she would like to get the students more involved. She stated that her general health was “good--some headaches,” and she denied having any nonschool problems adversely affecting her teaching. On March 20, 1996, Jo Ellen Kessler, Coordinator of Curriculum Services, conducted a two-hour observation, concluding that she never saw Respondent provide instruction for the students. Ms. Kessler stated: Dr. [Griesinger] asked that I spend at least one hour in the classroom. I spent approximately two hours there because I kept waiting for Ms. Hernandez to provide instruction for the students. During the time I was in the classroom, there was no review of any material. There was no introduction, no initial instruction. No clear directions were given for doing the activities on the chalkboard. The students were given no reason for learning. There was no motivation for learning, no personal connections made. There were no instructional materials prepared for them to use during the lesson, other than the things written on the chalkboard--certainly not the best way to engage students. There was no evidence of any materials prepared for students of differing abilities. There was no instruction given to help any of them learn the skills involved. . . . The children who behaved nicely were not really acknowledged for their attention or behavior. No specific praise was given to any student. Most of the well behaved children were not given an opportunity to be involved in the tasks. They sat with nothing to do. The students were given no clear expectation of what their behaviors should be. They had no limits set, no idea of what was acceptable and what was not. The students were not engaged in any of the tasks. They hung over their desks, put their heads down and appeared quite bored. In summary, the students did almost nothing for a two-hour period. The teacher was not teaching and was completely ineffective in managing their behavior. They were not involved in meaningful review or practice. Their behavior would be much improved if they had well-planned instruction and materials and if they were given meaningful learning tasks. The children in the room appeared to be bright and willing to learn, but they were not given the opportunity to do so. On March 22, 1996, Dr. Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, sent a letter to Respondent giving her official notice, pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, that her performance was “unsatisfactory” and, if the deficiencies were not corrected next year, he would recommend that the School Board terminate her at the close of the 1996-97 school year. On March 25, 1996, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. In contrast to the preceding year, Respondent received only four satisfactory grades, all in conformance to school and district rules. Nearly all of the other grades were “Unacceptable level of performance observed.” The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen needs to improve drastically in all areas.” On the same day, Ms. Bell had to go to Respondent’s classroom to restore order. Hearing Respondent and students shouting from outside the door, Ms. Bell found seven students out of their seats and the remaining students seated with nothing to do. The prior day a substitute teacher had had no problem with the class. On or about April 4, 1996, Respondent went on medical leave for the rest of the school year due to anxiety and menstrual problems. At the hearing, Respondent produced little, if any, evidence concerning the onset of her medical problems or their effect on her teaching. The preponderance of the evidence proves that demands that Respondent improve her classroom performance preceded the medical problems, although Respondent’s complaints of anxiety may have been exacerbated by these demands. Dr. Griesinger hired a substitute teacher for the remainder of the school year. The substitute teacher had no problem teaching Respondent’s class for the next two months. Respondent returned to work at the start of the 1996-97 school year with clearance from her physician. She was assigned a second grade class. Separate observations on September 4, 1996, by Dr. Griesinger and Ms. Bell record a boy barking like a dog in the back row during class without notice from Respondent, a boy sleeping so soundly that Respondent twice could not awaken him and gave up trying with a shrug of her shoulders, and motivated students losing interest after Respondent never called on them despite having their hands up for long periods of time. In all cases of misbehavior, Respondent imposed no consequences. During an observation on September 5, 1996, Respondent repeatedly asked the class what mountains look like. While she was doing so, one boy, who had been in and out of his seat for five minutes, managed to get the teacher’s manual off Respondent’s desk, give it to the observer, and tell the observer that this is where Respondent gets all her questions. At the same time, a girl, who was playing while in her seat, made two trips to the bathroom in 30 minutes, spending the second visit playing in the bathroom, turning the fan on and off. After teaching from August 20 through September 12, 1996, Respondent again went on medical leave. Dr. Griesinger hired a new teacher to take over the class. On October 3, 1996, Ms. Ashby sent a memorandum to the then-counsel for Petitioner advising him that Respondent’s classroom performance has continued to deteriorate and that he should review the file for proceeding with a predetermination hearing for “incompetency,” noting that Petitioner had given her notification last spring that she had “one year and six weeks to improve.” On October 21, 1996, Dr. Griesinger sent a letter to Respondent confirming their conversation of October 7 in which Respondent informed Dr. Griesinger that she would be taking the year off for medical reasons. The letter asks Respondent to call Dr. Griesinger prior to October 25 if this is incorrect. Respondent did not call Dr. Griesinger in response to the October 21 letter. Instead, a few days before Christmas vacation was to start, Respondent contacted Dr. Griesinger and told her that she would be returning to teach when school started again in January. Dr. Griesinger justifiably decided not to disturb the second grade class that the replacement teacher was handling quite well. Dr. Griesinger instead formed a new fourth grade class and assigned it to Respondent. Respondent began teaching the class on the first day of school after vacation, which was January 6, 1997. On January 9, 1997, Ms. Pottorf observed Respondent’s fourth grade social studies class. She found that the students were well-behaved and on-task for only about 10 minutes. The lesson was “disjointed,” and Respondent displayed an obvious unfamiliarity with the subject matter, as evidenced, for instance, by her inability to find a definition for “pioneer” in the text or her incorrect assumption that the Miami Indians were a tribe in Florida, not Ohio. She referred to the two or three students who had read the lesson as “her friends who knew the answers,” excluding the remainder of the class. Respondent failed to guide students’ responses, allowing the same answers and silly answers to continue. Unaware of the time, Respondent allowed the lesson to end without review or conclusion. The next class was reading. Respondent immediately lost the attention of the class by engaging in a discussion with a child about the seating arrangements. For no good reason, Respondent required the class to cover material that had been covered earlier in the week. She displayed a poor command of the reading material. For instance, telling the students that “errors” were to be called “challenges,” Respondent proceeded to use the words, “error” or “mistake” throughout the lesson, each time adding that “We are to call them challenges.” Randomly checking workbooks, Respondent failed to note which students had done their work and which had not. After a student was left without a reading partner, Respondent said she would be his partner, but she never returned to be his partner. When the students became loud and off-task, Respondent required them to call out the reading words in unison with her arm signals. She made them repeat words numerous times, to the obvious irritation of the students. After one child asked her not to do this, and, in response to Respondent’s inquiry, the rest of the class asked to be spared the repetition, Respondent agreed not to continue asking them to repeat the same word. But she continued to do so. At one point, she made them start over because they did not show enough energy, as the task became filler for the period, which ended without review or conclusion. On the same date, Ms. Bell did an observation of Respondent. She noted that the majority of the students were off-task. Respondent repeatedly tried to restore order by telling the students to look at the rules, but there were no rules posted anywhere in the classroom. On January 10, 1997, Respondent enlisted the students’ assistance in adopting classroom rules. A list of seven rules was disorganized, with some rules encompassing all of the others. The students became more restless when Respondent asked about consequences. No one answered her questions about consequences as the process became more disordered. Respondent evidently did not understand the point system that she had developed, leaving the whole system confusing and unmanageable. Later, a child privately asked to be Respondent’s helper. Respondent announced this request to the class, but did not otherwise acknowledge it. Respondent moved into a lesson on pronouns, but could not define a pronoun. Abruptly leaving this lesson after only three minutes, Respondent presented a new lesson on narrative writing, which she explained in one rambling sentence interspersed with frequent allusions to the rules and consequences that they had just worked out. Few students were on-task by this time. Respondent taught through February 6, 1997. At that time, Petitioner suspended her for her poor classroom performance. Respondent’s three major problems in the classroom were that she did not know her material, could not teach, and could not control the behavior of her students. She wasted time in transitions, such as to lunch, physical education, or taking attendance. She missed many opportunities to reinforce good behavior and frequently reinforced bad behavior by ignoring visible defiance or even unwittingly rewarding it. She confused students as often as she instructed them and displayed no idea of how she could explain content to her students. She sometimes displayed an uncertain grasp of even elementary materials. The result of these deficiencies is that Respondent impeded learning by repeatedly failing to communicate with and relate to the students to the point that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. There is evidence of effective instances of teaching by Respondent. Undoubtedly, Respondent had some days that were better than others. However, Respondent’s performance as a teacher was so bad so often that she was ineffective and incompetent as a teacher. Numerous individuals observed her work in the classroom and found it seriously deficient. Ms. Ashby ultimately opined that, after a long career in education, Respondent, whom she described as a “horrible teacher,” was “one of the worst teachers I ever worked with.” Respondent tried to show at the hearing that her teaching problems were the result of her health problems. As already noted, the evidence shows that her teaching problems preceded the emergence of her health problems. However, even if the health problems preceded the teaching problems, Respondent, with the approval of her physician, returned to the classroom in January 1997 and performed abysmally. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that her health problems, or other mitigating factors, induced Respondent (and her physician) to decide that she could return to the classroom in January. The impact of her poor performance was dramatic, as the learning of her students slowed and even ended upon her return to the classroom. Respondent argues that Dr. Griesinger and others in the administration were biased against her for reasons that are unclear from the record. Although Dr. Griesinger decided by no later than January 1997 that Respondent was not going to be able to eliminate her performance deficiencies, this determination was supported by the record and was not indicative of bias. Dr. Griesinger’s determination did not distort her observations, which were corroborated by several other individuals. Respondent understandably draws support from Dr. Griesinger’s initial positive evaluation. This evaluation was more likely due to a combination of her carelessness and optimism, as she converted an evaluative instrument to a device designed to encourage and promote one of her classroom teachers. Most likely, Respondent was ill-suited to assume the responsibilities of a classroom teacher when she began teaching second grade in the fall of 1993, but may have initially escaped the serious problems that later befell her due to a combination of factors, such as the youth of her students, extraordinary effort of what was effectively a new teacher, and inattentiveness of the school administration.
The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether the Respondent, Jose Antonio Blanco, should be placed in the Dade County School Board's opportunity school program due to his alleged disruptive behavior and failure to adjust to the regular school program.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: During the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent attended Palm Springs Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. Respondent (date of birth: 11-13-72) was enrolled in the seventh grade and was administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North on March 9, 1987, due to his alleged disruptive behavior and failure to adjust to the regular school program. Respondent's grades for the 1986-87 school year, the first grading periods, were as follows: COURSE ACADEMIC EFFORT CONDUCT GRADE Mathematics 1st F 3 F 2d F 3 F Physical 1st F 3 F Education 2d F 3 F Industrial 1st F 3 F Arts 2d F 3 F Education Language 1st F 3 F Arts 2d F 3 F Social 1st F 3 F Studies 2d F 3 F Science 1st F 3 F 2d F 3 F SYMBOLS: GRADE "F" UNSATISFACTORY EFFORT "3" INSUFFICIENT CONDUCT "F" UNSATISFACTORY Respondent did not enroll at the opportunity school and did not attend classes. Instead, Respondent's mother enrolled the student in a private school. His conduct has improved but his grades and academic progress are still below level. When a student is disruptive or misbehaves in some manner, a teacher or other staff member at Palm Springs Junior High School may submit a report of the incident to the office. These reports are called Student Case Management Referral forms, and are used to report behavior problems. During the first two grading periods of the 1986-87 school year, Respondent caused 16 Student Case Management Referral Forms to be written regarding his misbehavior. All incidents of his misbehavior were not reported. A synopsis of Respondent's Student Case Management Referral Forms is attached and made a part hereof. Eva Alvarado is a science teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Ms. Alvarado's class, Respondent was persistently disruptive. Respondent refused to do homework and in-class assignments. Respondent was unprepared 90 percent of the time and would disturb the class with loud talking. During lectures Respondent would attempt to talk to other students and ignore Ms. Alvarado's instructions. Ms. Alvarado tried to correct the situation by sending notices to Respondent's parents, but little improvement was made. Valdez Murray is a social studies teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Mrs. Murray's class Respondent was persistently tardy. Respondent refused to complete homework and in-class assignments. Mrs. Murray contacted Respondent's mother, but the student's work and conduct did not improve. Respondent talked in a loud voice to interrupt class. On one occasion, Respondent walked out of the class without permission and on two other occasions Respondent fell asleep at his desk. Respondent made a practice of talking to others who were trying to do their work, and would laugh at Mrs. Murray's efforts to control the situation. Mrs. Murray would instruct the class to ignore Respondent's noise making activities. Mrs. Alicia Robles is an English teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Mrs. Robles' class Respondent refused to perform any work assignments, including in-class oral work. Respondent would instead throw paper darts to the ceiling. Respondent tried to keep other students from working and would interrupt lectures. According to Mrs. Robles, Respondent played with the wires on his braces to create a reason he could be excused from class. Barry Jones is a physical education teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. Respondent refused to dress out and participate with the class. Despite Mr. Jones' effort to notify both Respondent and his parents of the problem, no change in conduct or performance was made. Mrs. Blanco acknowledged that her son has a behavior problem, but believes if given another chance his conduct would improve. During the time he has attended private school his conduct has improved tremendously. Although Respondent has not caught up academically, Mrs. Blanco believes he is ready to return to the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1987. SYNOPSIS OF STUDENT CASE MANAGEMENT REFERRAL FORMS DATE INCIDENT DISCIPLINE 10/29/86 disrupting class; parent arguing, talking, conference refusing to work 11/3/86 interrupt class parent refuse to obey conference instruction 11/26/86 tardy, disrupts request be class talking, walking removed changing seats from class- parent contact attempted 12/03/87 tardy, talking to parent contact classmates, showing 3 days out in class in-school suspension 01/13/87 tardy, unprepared 13 days disruptive - noisy, attention defiant parent contact attempted 01/114/87 tardy, refused to additional serve detention detention parent contact 01/15/87 refusal to dress out, 3 days left class area detention without permission 02/014/87 tardy, talks, walks parent contact around disrupting attempted class 02/05/87 refused to do parent contact assignment or test attempted 02/06/87 refused to work, parent contact shouting in class, attempted moving from one seat to another 02/10/87 disrupts class, parent contact running, shouting, unprepared, tardy 02/11/87 tardy, unprepared parent contact for class, failing grades 02/11/87 habitual misbehavior, parent contact lack of respect - refusal to cooperate 02/12/87 refusal to sit in seat; requested threats to other parent to student and teacher get counseling for student 02/25/87 highly disruptive requested during indoor outdoor suspension suspension 02/27/87 disruptive in requested indoor suspension opportunity school APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1453 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted in Findings of Fact paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraph 2 is accepted in Finding of Fact paragraph 3. The only "D" Respondent received, however, was an exam grade. The grading period was "F." Paragraphs 3 and 4 are accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact paragraph 6. Paragraph 5 is accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact paragraph 9 and the Synopsis attached. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 7. Paragraph 8 is accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 is rejected as unnecessary, argumentative. Paragraph 10 is accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 5 and the Synopsis. Paragraph 11 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 3313 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Board Administration Building 11450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mrs. Bertha Blanco 14535 West 114 Lane Hialeah, Florida 33012 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 11450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent should be denied issuance of a new professional service contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, on the grounds asserted in the Consolidated Specific Notice of Charges filed in these consolidated cases? If not, whether Respondent's employment with the Dade County School Board should be terminated pursuant to the Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes, on the grounds asserted in the Consolidated Specific Notice of Charges filed in these consolidated cases?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made to supplement the facts to which the parties have stipulated: Respondent is 63 years of age. She is an English teacher by profession. She has been teaching since 1972, the year she graduated from the University of Maryland. Prior to her employment with the Board, she held various teaching positions in the States of Maryland and New Jersey and also taught at several private schools in Dade County, Florida. Respondent's employment with the Board began in 1985. For the entire period of her employment with the Board, she was assigned to Miami Carol City High School (hereinafter referred to as "Carol City"), where she taught English. Following the successful completion of her probationary period, Respondent was issued a professional service contract by the Board. The 1989-90 School Year In accordance with the Board's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), school principals and their designees have the authority to formally observe and evaluate teachers at their school and to prescribe remedial activities designed to improve the teacher's performance. The categories of classroom performance that are assessed are preparation/planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and assessment techniques. Under TADS, a teacher is also rated in a seventh area, that of professional responsibility, which encompasses matters that go beyond the teacher's performance in the classroom. On November 3, 1989, Respondent was formally observed and evaluated by Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, an assistant principal at Carol City. Before becoming an assistant principal, O'Donnell had been a language arts regional coordinator for the Board and an English teacher. O'Donnell rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. O'Donnell prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will submit her weekly lesson plans for each preparation by noon each Friday (or the last working day of the week) to Dr. O'Donnell. In weekly plans, Ms. Pollack will use a variety of methods designed to motivate students. In addition to lecture and questioning, she will use group work projects, student presentations, etc. She will denote in her weekly plans the method(s) to be used each day. Ms. Pollack will include supplemental materials at least two times each week. These aids will be clearly labeled in her plans. Ms. Pollack will assign, collect, grade and enter in her gradebook at least two grades per student per week. 2/ One assignment will be a Writing Enhancement product and the other will be a quiz or test related to literature or an oral presentation. Ms. Pollack will submit her gradebook to Dr. O'Donnell each Friday for review. Ms. Pollack will develop a unit test which includes a variety of test items. She will submit to Dr. O'Donnell for review prior to administering to students. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that O'Donnell had observed during her November 3, 1989, observation. Respondent was again formally observed and evaluated by O'Donnell on April 23, 1990. She was rated acceptable in all six classroom performance categories. It was therefore determined that Respondent had corrected the performance deficiencies noted by O'Donnell during her November 3, 1989, observation. The 1990-91 School Year O'Donnell next formally observed and evaluated Respondent on October 4, 1990. She rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Respondent did not follow her lesson plan. She presented ideas and information to the students in a disorganized and illogical manner without the use of supplemental materials which would enhanced the lesson. Students were obviously confused and did not understand the lesson, but Respondent made no adjustments to try to alleviate such confusion and lack of understanding. Adding to the students' confusion was Respondent's failure to indicate whether their responses to her questions were correct or incorrect. Many of the questions Respondent asked were not pertinent to the lesson. There was no closure to the lesson. The students' writing enhancement folders did not contain the requisite number of corrected and graded compositions. Although Respondent's gradebook indicated that she had given the students one test and two quizzes, the students' folders did not contain any evidence that this test and these quizzes had been given. 3/ Neither did O'Donnell see any indication that the students had evaluated their own or each other's work. O'Donnell prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will submit her lesson plans to her department head by 2:30 p.m. each Friday. In the event of her department head's absence, she will submit her plans directly to Dr. O'Donnell. In the event of Ms. Pollack's absence, she will submit her lesson plans by 2:30 p.m. of the day of her return to work. On her weekly plans, Ms. Pollack will list, in order, the specific activities to be accomplished each day. In addition, she will estimate the time each activity will require and note that on the plan next to the activity. In her weekly plans, Ms. Pollack will briefly explain the connection of objectives to activities each day. Ms. Pollack will review information regarding questioning skills provided by Dr. O'Donnell. She will prepare a list of questions to be asked in a teacher selected lesson. Ms. Pollack will review the questions with Dr. O'Donnell prior to the lesson's delivery. Ms. Pollack will observe two mutually selected language arts teachers for one full class period each. She will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of techniques (at least 3) each teacher used to: a- measure students' understanding of a lesson b- deal with students' lack of understanding. Ms. Pollack will develop or use commercially prepared supplementary material at least two times per week. She will note the use in her lesson plans and provide a copy of all supplementary material to Dr. O'Donnell at the same time she submits her lesson plans. In her observations of other language arts teachers Ms. Pollack will note and list words used by these teachers when students answer incorrectly. She will review this with Dr. O'Donnell at a scheduled conference. In a meeting with the department head, they will discuss how the teacher can make suggestions to learners regarding improving their performance while maintaining positive feelings within the classroom. Ms. Pollack will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of at least three methods developed in conjunction with the department head. In her meeting with the department head, Ms. Pollack will discuss what to look for in order to determine if adjustments to a lesson are needed. She will also discuss appropriate adjustments that can be made. Ms. Pollack will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of at least three signals that lesson adjustments are needed and three appropriate adjustments the teacher can make for those signals. In her observation of other language arts teachers, Ms. Pollack will note how the teacher prepares student's for the day's lesson. Ms. Pollack will summarize this information and provide it in written form to Dr. O'Donnell. In her weekly lesson plans, Ms. Pollack will number the exact order in which she will present each topic activity. Ms. Pollack will include on her weekly plans each day's closure activity/statement. Ms. Pollack will provide one class set of the Writing Enhancement assignment to Dr. O'Donnell each Monday by 9 a.m. Dr. O'Donnell will notify Ms. Pollack by note in her mailbox by 7 a.m. each Monday which class set she will review that week. Papers must be available for at least 85% of the students in the class and there must be teacher input on each paper. Ms. Pollack will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a note regarding type of grading used- holistic, primary trait, intensive, etc. She will vary the type of grading criteria. The list of questions that Ms. Pollack will provide will include a notation regarding the level of each question based on Bloom's Taxonomy. The teacher will provide at least one opportunity per week for students to evaluate their own or each other's performance. Ms. Pollack will note when the opportunity takes place on her lesson plans. Ms. Pollack will develop a unit test for students. She will review it with the department head before administering to students. She will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a copy of the test and a scoring analysis within three days of the test's administration. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that O'Donnell had observed during her October 4, 1990, observation. By memorandum dated October 30, 1990, James Hunt, the principal of Carol City, referred Respondent to the Board's Employee Assistance Program. The referral was made after Respondent had been involved in an altercation with a student in one of her classes and the student's parent. Hunt believed that Respondent had exercised poor judgment in handling the situation. Upon learning of the referral, Respondent conceded that she was having a difficult and stressful time in attempting to deal with the students in this particular class. After attending one Employee Assistance Program meeting, Respondent declined to further participate in the program. On November 30, 1990, Hunt formally observed and evaluated Respondent. He rated Respondent acceptable in all six classroom performance categories. During his November 30, 1990, observation Hunt examined neither Respondent's gradebook nor the students' folders. He subsequently conducted such an examination and discovered that the gradebook and the folders were incomplete. On December 7, 1990, Hunt held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. Following the conclusion of the conference-for-the-record, Hunt prepared the following memorandum which accurately summarized what had occurred during the conference: On December 7th a mid-year Conference-for-the- Record was held in my office. Present at the conference were Thomasina O'Donnell, Assistant Principal, Ron Pollack, UTD Steward, you and I. I began by asking you if you had received notification. You replied that you had. I explained the purpose of this mid-year Conference-for the-Record. We will review your performance to date and your future employment with Dade County Public Schools. Your first observation was conducted by Dr. O'Donnell on October 4th [and] you were found unacceptable in Categories I [preparation/planning], II [knowledge of subject matter], IV [techniques of instruction], and VI [assessment techniques]. You were placed in prescriptive mode. You met your timelines and satisfied your prescription. I conducted a second observation on November 30th. You were acceptable in Categories I through VI. However, you were placed in the prescriptive mode for Category VII [professional responsibility] due to your non-compliance with the Jack Gordon Writing Act. Also, the summative of observation 1 and 2 yields an unacceptable summative. Therefore, at least one more observation will be required. It is our intent to assist you in every way possible. You have been provided with information about the Gordon Act and as part of your prescription you are to meet with Dr. O'Donnell to review all aspects of it. I reviewed the fact that as schools are held accountable for class size, 4/ teachers are held accountable for student writing products. Respondent was next formally observed and evaluated on February 21, 1991. O'Donnell was the observer and evaluator. She rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, classroom management and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. The lesson plan was not followed. Almost one half of the period was used, not for instruction, but for "housekeeping" matters, such as taking roll and having the students "update" their folders and copy the day's "agenda" from the board. The students' writing enhancement folders did not contain the requisite number of corrected and graded compositions. There were no graded tests in any of the students' folders. O'Donnell prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Using the packet of information provided by Dr. O'Donnell, Ms. Pollack will write appropriate daily objectives for the weekly lesson plans. She will provide her weekly plans to Dr. O'Donnell each Friday by 2:30 p.m. Ms. Pollack will place the plans in Dr. O'Donnell's mailbox in the main office. In the event of Ms. Pollack's absence she will submit her plans by 7:15 a.m. of the day of her return. In her weekly plans Ms. Pollack will include an estimate of the time for each activity for each day. She will limit folder maintenance or any similar "housekeeping" task to no more than 5 minutes at the beginning or end of the period. After the last class each day, Ms. Pollack will review [her] written plan. She will mentally review the degree to which she followed all [the] plan. She will adjust her plan for the next day as needed. She will invite a colleague to observe one full class period. She will provide the colleague with her lesson plan. After the class she will discuss the extent to which she followed the plan. The colleague will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a brief written description of the observed lesson. Ms. Pollack will include in her daily plans a brief written instructional activity to begin each day. Ms. Pollack will submit to Dr. O'Donnell two different sets of graded paper[s] per week, not including the writing enhancement assignment. She will post in her gradebook at least three (3) grades per week. One grade must be a composition, another must be a quiz/test (at least 10 questions) based on literature and the third grade will be of Ms. Pollack's choosing. Ms. Pollack will submit her grade book to Dr. O'Donnell for review each Friday by 2:45 p.m. Additionally, Ms. Pollack will develop and, after clearing with Dr. O'Donnell, administer a unit test. The unit test will contain multiple-choice, matching, true-false and essay questions. This unit test will contain at least 30 questions. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that O'Donnell had observed during her February 21, 1991, observation. On April 17, 1991, the Superintendent of Schools sent Respondent a letter which read as follows: This is your official notification that I have reviewed your assessments and I am hereby charging you with unsatisfactory performance during the 1990-91 school year in the following categories: I Preparation and Planning and VI Assessment Techniques. These performance deficiencies may result in termination of your employment if not corrected prior to April 1, 1992. Upon written request, a meeting will be scheduled with Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director, in the Office of Professional Standards to review the determination of your unsatisfactory performance. That meeting will also address your statutory entitlement to request consideration of transfer. Assessment of your performance will continue through the balance of this school year, and the Office of Professional Standards will continue to monitor your progress during the 1991-92 school year. On May 24, 1991, Hunt held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to review her performance and her future employment with the Board. During the conference, Hunt advised Respondent that she would be receiving an overall rating of unacceptable on her annual evaluation and that she would have the following year to attempt to improve her performance. Respondent received her annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year on May 31, 1991. She was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation/planning, classroom management and assessment techniques and, as promised, she received an overall rating of unacceptable. Respondent believed that she had been treated unfairly at Carol City, particularly by O'Donnell. 5/ She therefore asked her collective bargaining representative, the Untied Teachers of Dade, to request a transfer for her, which it did. The request was denied because the Board determined that it was not administratively feasible to transfer Respondent to another school given the glut of high school English teachers in the school system. The Board, however, agreed that during the 1991-92 school year Respondent would be formally observed and evaluated by as many non-site administrators as possible. It also reassigned her to teach ninth grade, an assignment which involved less paperwork. The 1991-92 School Year Respondent remained at Carol City during the 1991-92 school year. The first formal observation and evaluation of Respondent's classroom performance that year was conducted on October 8, 1991, by Dr. Judith Margulies, an assistant principal at Miami Edison High School. Margulies, like O'Donnell, had been a language arts regional coordinator for the Board and an English teacher before becoming an assistant principal. Margulies rated Respondent deficient in classroom management and techniques of instruction. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Respondent did not appropriately address off-task behavior, of which there was a considerable amount. Some of the few students who expressed an interest in actively participating in the lesson by raising their hands were totally ignored by Respondent. Respondent gave unclear and confusing instructions to her students that she simply repeated and failed to clarify when it should have been obvious to her that the students did not understand what she wanted them to do. Repeating these instructions unnecessarily wasted valuable instructional time. By the end of the class period, Respondent had not gotten done what, according to her lesson plan, she had hoped to accomplish. Margulies met with Respondent after the end of the class period and discussed with her the deficiencies she had noted. She also prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will develop a set of classroom rules, review them with Dr. O'Donnell and post conspicuously in her classroom. Also, she will give individual copies to all students. Dr. O'Donnell will make all arrangements for Ms. Pollack to observe a 9th grade teacher at MESH [Miami Edison Senior High] for one entire class period. Before leaving MESH, Ms. Pollack will discuss what she has observed with the teacher. She will list at least 5 techniques the teacher used to address off task behavior. She will also describe at l[e]ast two methods the teacher employed to redirect students who were off task. Ms. Pollack will meet with Dr. O'Donnell to review the observation within 3 days of the observation. Ms. Pollack will observe one of Ms. Baum's [a fellow English teacher's] class for one entire period; she will look for and list 3 techniques Ms. Baum used to either prevent or redirect inappropriate student behavior. Within 48 hours of the observation, Ms. Pollack will meet with Ms. Baum to discuss the observation. Ms. Pollack will also schedule a meeting with Dr. O'Donnell to review the list and the discussion with Ms. Baum. Dr. O'Donnell will make all necessary arrangements. Ms. Pollack will register for and successfully complete the TEC Course "Classroom Management" to be held as follows: . . . Ms. Pollack will develop a detailed lesson plan for each of the following dates: Oct. 23 and 30. She will submit her plans to Dr. O'Donnell the Friday previous to those dates by 3:00 p.m. The plans must include the production of a completed student work product. Ms. Pollack will attach to her plans an example or model of the product she expects from her students. While observing Ms. Baum's class and/or through the follow-up discussion, Ms. Pollack will determine and list at least 3 techniques Ms. Baum employs to be aware of all students. Ms. Pollack will provide this list to Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack will plan one day's lesson specifically for group work. She will ask a colleague to observe her teach a class. They will discuss the observation. The teacher will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a brief written summary of the activities and discussion. Dr. O'Donnell will make all arrangements. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that Margulies had observed during her October 8, 1991, observation. Two or three days following the observation, Margulies met briefly with Respondent to discuss the prescription. On November 4, 1991, Hunt held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to review her failure to timely comply with prescription deadlines, which also had been the subject of an informal conference he and Respondent had had the previous month. Following this conference-for-the-record, Hunt determined that Respondent was "in violation of Category VII of TADS, Professional Responsibilities." He so advised Respondent and indicated he would be preparing and presenting to her an additional prescription dealing with this violation. Hunt warned that "[f]ailure to comply with this prescription will result in further disciplinary action." The prescription was prepared and presented to Respondent on or about November 12, 1991. It set forth the following remedial activities for Respondent to perform: Read the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (6B-1.01) and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (6B-1.06) [copies of which were provided to Respondent]. Delineate applicable sections and submit a summary to Dr. O'Donnell for review and discussion. Read the UTD Contract sections relating to TADS. Outline these procedures and submit to Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack is directed to meet all remaining timelines of her current prescription. In the event of any additional prescriptions, she is also directed to meet all timelines. Respondent was next formally observed and evaluated on November 19, 1991, by Charles Houghton, a site administrator at another Board-run facility. Before assuming this position, Houghton, like O'Donnell and Margulies, had been a language arts regional coordinator for the Board and an English teacher. Houghton rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Respondent did not follow her lesson plan. The entire period was consumed by only one of the four activities identified in the plan. This lone activity was simply to review material that had already been covered during a prior class period. What was identified in the plan as the lesson's objective was in reality an activity. Moreover, it was an activity that the students did not have the opportunity to complete. Although knowledgeable regarding the subject matter of the lesson, she was unable to impart her knowledge to her students. She failed to make the topic under discussion relevant to the students. Respondent did not ask questions that were sufficiently challenging. Most of the students were inattentive and not involved in whatever instruction was taking place. Respondent made no effort to draw them into the lesson. Almost all of the grades in Respondent's grade book were for classwork. There were very few grades for tests, quizzes or writing assignments. Of the student folders Houghton examined, none contained more than two graded assignments. The folders consisted primarily of written classroom assignments that involved merely copying on a piece of paper material that was on the blackboard. The students had already received their report cards for the first nine-week grading period of the school year, but the folders did not contain sufficient documentation to substantiate the grades she had given. The remedial activities Houghton prescribed for Respondent included the following: Ms. Pollack will keep a daily log in which she will note the degree to which she accomplishes the activities she had planned according to her prepared lesson plan. She will submit the log and the weekly lesson plan on each Monday for the previous week to Dr. O'Donnell. In her weekly lesson plans, Ms. Pollack will develop at least 3 activities with direct relevance to students' lives or interests. She will clearly identify these activities in her plans. She will submit her weekly lesson plans to Dr. O'Donnell each Friday, before 3:00 p.m. Ms. Pollack will review the packet of information concerning question strategies previously provided. She will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of at least 5 advantages to pre-planning questions and at least 4 advantages to asking questions at higher cognitive levels. Ms. Pollack will arrange for the Region I Language Arts coordinator to observe informally at least one full class period. Ms. Granat will provide feedback to Ms. Pollack concerning the students' understanding of the lesson concepts. She will also provide Ms. Pollack with feedback regarding how closely she followed her planned lesson and any adjustments made on any which should have been made. Ms. Granat will also provide written feedback to Ms. Pollack and Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack will assign, collect and grade at least 3 student assignments each week in all of her classes. One assignment must be a literature quiz/test, one must be a writing assignment of at least one paragraph and the third will be the teacher's choice. Each Monday during 1st period Ms. Pollack will present the student work and her gradebook in order to determine that the grades have been posted. Dr. O'Donnell will select one class each Monday for examination. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that Houghton had observed during his November 19, 1991, observation. Houghton had a post-observation meeting with Respondent at which he went over the prescription with her. On December 6, 1991, Hunt had a mid-year conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review Respondent's performance to date and the status of her future employment with the Board. Hunt reminded Respondent that if her performance, as measured by formal observations and evaluations, did not improve sufficiently, she would not be retained. Two union representatives were also in attendance at the conference. Hunt gave them permission to informally observe Respondent so that they would be in a better position to assist her. He also offered Respondent the opportunity to solicit assistance from any Board employee in whom she had confidence, regardless of whether the employee had been identified as a resource in any of the prescriptions she had received. Respondent was next formally observed and evaluated on February 7, 1992, by Dr. Matthew Welker, an assistant principal at Carol City. Welker rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, classroom management and teacher-student relationships. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan. The students spent a significant amount of time copying the day's agenda from the blackboard. The agenda written on the blackboard was not consistent with the lesson plan. Respondent arrived late to class and therefore did not have a full period in which to instruct her students. The time she did have to provide instruction she did not use efficiently. An excessive amount of time was spent on "housekeeping" tasks. Of the 20 students in attendance that day, 6/ six were persistently off-task. Respondent made no real effort to prevent or to redirect their off- task behavior or to involve them in the lesson. Most of Respondent's interactional time during the lesson was spent with only six or seven students located on the right side of the classroom. Respondent made no attempt to verbally or nonverbally reward or recognize the students who did actively and appropriately participate in the lesson. Welker prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will maintain a daily log indicating the degree to which she has accomplished the activities described in her weekly lesson plan. Ms. Pollack will also indicate in writing any changes she has made to align her actual lessons during the week with her weekly lesson plan. Ms. Pollack will submit these materials along with her weekly lesson plan to Dr. Welker for review and discussion on Monday of the following week . . . . Ms. Pollack will invite one of her colleagues or the Language Arts Department chairperson to observe her class. During that time the visitor is to record the time she spends on various activities while in class. Using the record prepared by the visitor, Ms. Pollack will then analyze her instruction on the basis of how much time she spends on instructional versus noninstructional activities. Once that information is known, Ms. Pollack will develop a strategy to reduce her percentage of noninstructional time while in class. This strategy will take the form of detailed lesson plans that indicate how Ms. Pollack is using time in her classroom. Ms. Pollack will submit her lesson plan to Dr. Welker for review and discussion on each Monday within the timeline established herein [March 30, 1992]. Ms. Pollack will invite one of her colleagues or the Language Arts Department chairperson to observe her class. During that time, the visitor is to record the frequency of off-task behavior observed in her class. Using the record prepared by the visitor, Ms. Pollack will then analyze her instruction and planning to formulate a plan to significantly reduce the frequency of off-task behavior observed. This strategy will take the form of detailed lesson plans that Ms. Pollack will submit to Dr. Welker for review and discussion on each Monday within the timeline established herein [March 30, 1992]. Ms. Pollack will invite a colleague or the Language Arts Department chairperson to observe her class in order to determine the frequency and distribution of verbal communication she makes with students in the classroom. Once that information has been recorded, Ms. Pollack will analyze the data and develop a treatment strategy to increase the frequency and distribution of her verbal communication with students in her classroom by at least 50 percent. Ms. Pollack will submit in writing to Dr. Welker for review and discussion the following information: Pretreatment interactional analysis showing both frequency and distribution of verbal student contact Treatment strategy to increase both frequency and distribution of verbal student contact during class. Posttreatment interactional analysis showing both frequency and distribution of verbal student contact. Ms. Pollack will make a tape recording of herself teaching a lesson involving interaction with students. Once the recording has been prepared, Ms. Pollack will play back the tape and record the frequency of reinforcement statements made to the students. She will also analyze her verbal statements to determine the total number of positive and negative reinforcement statements made during the class. She will then develop a treatment plan to increase the frequency of positive reinforcement by 50 percent. Ms. Pollack will submit in writing to Dr. Welker for review and discussion the following information: Pretreatment interactional analysis showing the total number of positive and negative reinforcement statements made toward students in your class Treatment strategy to increase the number of positive reinforcement statements while decreasing the number of negative reinforcement statements made toward students in your class Posttreatment interactional analysis showing the total number of positive and negative reinforcement statements made toward students in your class. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that Welker had observed during his February 7, 1992, observation. Welker also provided Respondent with excerpts from a book that he recommended Respondent read to help improve her classroom performance. Hunt had another conference-for-the-record with Respondent on March 4, 1992. Hunt advised Respondent that since she had not corrected her performance deficiencies, he was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that her professional service teaching contract not be renewed. He added, however, that he would reconsider his decision if Respondent "demonstrate[d] acceptable performance in the near future." Although, in explaining his decision to Respondent, Hunt specifically mentioned only the formal evaluations Respondent had received, 7/ informal observations of Respondent's classes revealed similar deficiencies in her performance. Perhaps the most glaring of these deficiencies was in the area of classroom management. Administrators often had to be called to her classroom because she was unable to maintain control over her students. 8/ Respondent's inability to maintain such control resulted in a classroom environment that not only was not conducive to learning, but at times was unsafe. 9/ Respondent was provided ample assistance to help her perform satisfactorily as a classroom teacher, but such help was to no avail. Notwithstanding that she was given notice of her deficiencies and a reasonable opportunity to correct them, her performance remained unacceptable. Some time shortly after his March 4, 1992, conference-for-the-record with Respondent, Hunt submitted to the Superintendent of Schools his recommendation that the Board decline to renew Respondent's contract. The Superintendent, without providing any notice to Respondent, submitted an identical recommendation to the Board. On April 22, 1992, the Board adopted the Superintendent's recommendation. The following day Respondent was formally observed and evaluated by O'Donnell and Jean McCauley. At the time, McCauley was the principal of Redland Middle School. Like O'Donnell, she had a language arts background. This was an external review. External reviews are conducted jointly by a site and non-site administrator in instances where a teacher has received multiple unacceptable performance evaluations. The administrators rate the teacher's performance independently and, if there are deficiencies, prepare a prescription together. Both O'Donnell and McCauley rated Respondent deficient in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Although the lesson could have benefited from the use of supplemental materials, none were used. The lesson was presented in an illogical and disorganized fashion at the lowest cognitive level. No critical thinking or synthesis of ideas was required of the students. Respondent's instructional methods were clearly inappropriate for the needs and abilities of the students. Different learning styles were not accommodated. Respondent did not monitor the students' understanding of the lesson. Respondent did not interact with any individual student notwithstanding that there were only 12 students in attendance. Respondent made no adjustments although it was obvious that the students were not taking part in the lesson. Respondent did not intervene when students engaged in off-task, inappropriate or disruptive behavior. During the lesson, the students did no written work for Respondent to examine and assess. Because of the ill-suited nature of the questions asked by Respondent during the lesson, the responses given were not useful in providing student assessments. There were no grades in the gradebook, nor were there any student folders available, for the class Respondent was teaching that period. Respondent presented two student folders from another of her classes. These folders did not contain the materials they should have. They were devoid of any quizzes, tests and essays. O'Donnell and McCauley prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will submit her weekly lesson plans to Dr. O'Donnell by 2:30 p.m. each Friday. In the event of Ms. Pollack's absence, she will submit her plans by 2:30 p.m. of the day of her return. Her plans are to include a list, in order, of specific activities to be accomplished each day. In addition, she will estimate the time each activity will require and note that in the plan. In her weekly plans, Ms. Pollack will briefly explain the connection of objectives to activities each day. She will plan at least 2 separate but related activities each day. Ms. Pollack will review the packet of Questioning Techniques information previously presented to her. Using that information she will develop at least 5 higher level question[s], she will attach the questions to her lesson plans and meet with Dr. O'Donnell to review and discuss. Ms. Pollack will observe a mutually selected colleague for one free class period. She will note how the teacher makes clear his/her behavior expectations. She will present a list of at least 5 observed techniques to Dr. O'Donnell for review and discussion. During the observation of a colleague, Ms. Pollack will also note techniques the teacher employs to provide students with feedback about appropriate or inappropriate behavior. She will present this list to Dr. O'Donnell for review and discussion. During the observation and through discussion with her colleague, Ms. Pollack will note at least 5 techniques employed by her colleague to become aware of off-task student behavior. She will present this list to Dr. Welker for review and discussion. Ms. Pollack is to register for and attend the TEC course "Research on Student Motivation." The class dates are 5/13, 5/19, 5/27. Ms. Pollack will use commercially prepared supplementary material at least two times per week. She will attach copies of the supplementary material (or see Dr. O'Donnell if it cannot be attached to the submitted lesson plans) to the weekly lesson plans. While observing a colleague's class, Ms. Pollack will note at least 3 instances where the teacher corrects a student's incorrect response. Ms. Pollack will briefly describe in written form and present to Dr. O'Donnell for review and discussion. Ms. Pollack will meet with a mutually agreed upon colleague. She will discuss what to look for in order to determine if adjustments to the lesson are needed. She will also discuss appropriate adjustments that can be made. Ms. Pollack will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of at least 3 signals that lesson adjustments are needed and 3 appropriate adjustments a teacher can make. Ms. Pollack will invite a mutually agreed colleague to observe her teach a lesson. She will ask the colleague to keep a tally of interactions between her and individual students. Ms. Pollack will discuss this with her colleague and present the tally sheet to Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack will prepare and give a short quiz at least 2 times per week to determine areas of student confusion. She will make these available for review by Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack will assign, collect, grade and post in her gradebook at least 3 assignments per week. At least one of these must be a literature quiz/test, one must be a writing assignment of at lest one paragraph and the third is the teacher's choice. Every Monday Ms. Pollack must meet with Dr. O'Donnell to present the student work and her gradebook for review. Ms. Pollack is to report to Dr. O'Donnell's office at 7:45 a.m. In her weekly plans, Ms. Pollack must plan at least one activity that requires students to work together.. Ms. Pollack is to prepare a unit test for Call to the Wild and present it for review to Dr. O'Donnell before giving it to students. Ms. Pollack is to make and keep a student folder for each of her students. The folder must contain a representative sample of the student's work. Ms. Pollack is to submit a class set of these folders to Dr. O'Donnell for review. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that O'Donnell and McCauley had observed during their April 23, 1992, observation. On May 20, 1992, Hunt had another conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review Respondent's performance to date and her employment status. Hunt informed Respondent during the conference that, inasmuch as her performance remained unacceptable, as reflected by O'Donnell's and McCauley's evaluation, his recommendation to the Superintendent that her professional service teaching contract not be renewed would stand. (He apparently was unaware, as was Respondent, that the Board had already taken action on the matter.) Hunt further advised Respondent that she would be receiving an overall unacceptable rating on her annual evaluation for the 1991-92 school year. Although the Board had acted on the Superintendent's recommendation not to renew Respondent's professional service teaching contract on April 22, 1992, it was not until May 26, 1992, that the Superintendent sent Respondent a letter notifying her of the Board's action. The letter read as follows: This is your official notification that on April 22, 1992, The School Board of Dade County, Florida, acted upon my recommendation to withhold authorization for your future employment beyond the 1991-92 contract year. On April 17, 1991, I notified you that you had unsatisfactory performance and if no remediation were determined by April 1992, termination actions will be pursued. During the 1991-92 school [year], your performance was assessed deficient despite remediation efforts. You have been apprised of the deficiencies and subsequent employment actions in conferences-for-the-record on November 4, 1991, December 6, 1991, and March 4, 1992. Your employment with the Dade County Public Schools will terminate at the close of the 1991-92 contract year, and your last day of employment will be June 19, 1992. If you wish to contest your nonreappointment, you have fifteen calendar days from your receipt of this notice to request, in writing, a hearing. The written request for a hearing should be submitted to the School Board Clerk, Room 317, 1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Miami, Florida 33132. If you believe there is false information in your file which led to this decision, and wish to challenge this information, you should follow the procedures in Article XIV, Section 1.A.4 of the UTD collective bargaining agreement. Your written request must identify the false statements you wish cleared and should be addressed to the Assistant Superintendent, Office of Professional Standards, 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215, Miami, Florida 33132, within fifteen calendar days of your receipt of this notice. Please be advised that even if you should prevail, there is no entitlement to reemployment. Respondent received her annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year on or about May 29, 1992. She was rated unacceptable in the categories of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques and, as promised, she received an overall rating of unacceptable. In addition, the evaluation indicated that Hunt had not recommended her for further employment. By letter dated June 3, 1992, Respondent, through her attorney, requested a "Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings" on the nonrenewal of her professional service teaching contract. Pursuant to Respondent's request the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer on June 9, 1992. Following the close of the school year, Respondent was placed in a suspended-without-pay status pending the outcome of this administrative proceeding, notwithstanding that her professional service teaching contract had not been renewed. On July 22, 1992, the Board took action to formally suspend Respondent and initiate proceedings to dismiss her "for incompetency, just cause and gross insubordination." Respondent was advised of the Board's action and her right to request a hearing on the matter by a letter, dated July 23, 1992, from the Superintendent of Schools. Such a hearing was requested and the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer on July 27, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order (1) adopting the recommendation that Respondent not be issued a new professional service teaching contract, and (2) dismissing as moot the charges filed against Respondent pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of March, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 8th day of March, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Monroe County School Board, has “just cause” to terminate the employment of Respondent, Maryeugene E. Dupper, as a teacher for Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Monroe County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the “School Board”), is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Monroe County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Maryeugene E. Dupper, has been a classroom teacher with the School Board since August 2000. She began her employment as a substitute teacher and was subsequently employed as a full-time teacher at Poinciana Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “Poinciana”), where she worked with profoundly handicapped students. She remained at Poinciana through November 2006. Throughout her employment at Poinciana, Ms. Dupper received good performance evaluations, although they did decline over time. On November 17, 2006, Ms. Dupper transferred to Gerald Adams Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “Gerald Adams”), where she taught a Pre-K Exceptional Student Education or ESE class for the first time. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Ms. Dupper was employed as a teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. 2006-2007 School Year. From the beginning of her employment at Gerald Adams, Ms. Dupper evidenced difficulty implementing the curriculum in a meaningful way. In particular, Ann Herrin, Principal at Gerald Adams, whose testimony has been credited, found that Ms. Dupper was having a difficult time establishing the scope and sequence of lessons and effective classroom management techniques. Among the deficiencies Ms. Herrin found with Ms. Dupper’s performance was the lack of progress notes for her students. Ms. Dupper failed to keep any notes indicating that she had performed any formal evaluation of her students. When Ms. Herrin asked Ms. Dupper how she could tell whether her curriculum was successfully reaching each student, Ms. Dupper simply replied that “I am a teacher and I just know.” After conducting two formal observations and a number of informal observations of Ms. Dupper, Ms. Herrin, in her 2006- 2007 annual teacher evaluation concluded that Ms. Dupper “Needs Improvement” in Management of Student Conduct, Instruction Organization and Development, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Evaluation of Instructional Needs. Ms. Herring used a Teacher Annual Assessment Plan Comprehensive Assessment Form for this evaluation. Overall, Ms. Herrin rated Ms. Dupper as “Needs Improvement” noting that “Curriculum content is lacking – making the learning environment unacceptable and unmanageable.” Subsequent to Ms. Herrin’s evaluation of Ms. Dupper, Ms. Herrin issued a Professional Development Plan for Ms. Dupper dated May 30, 2007. Ms. Dupper, who had been provided assistance throughout the school year by Gerald Adams administrative staff, was offered guidance in the Professional Development Plan intended to improve her performance as a teacher. That guidance is accurately described in paragraph 9 of the School Board’s Proposed Recommended Order. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, the School Board instituted a new curriculum for use by Pre-K teachers. That curriculum, the Galileo Curriculum (hereinafter referred to as “Galileo”), is a computer-based program which includes lessons plans and benchmarks and goals for teachers to use in assessing student performance. Although Galileo includes a means for teachers to keep track of student progress, Galileo is not a student evaluation instrument intended for use in “testing” student progress. 2007-2008 School Year. During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Dupper was observed on October 11, November 8, and December 18, 2007, and on March 20 and 26, and May 6 and 22, 2008. Despite efforts to provide Ms. Dupper with professional assistance and making several changes in the teacher’s aide assigned to assist her, Ms. Dupper’s performance remained inadequate. Ms. Dupper was provided with assistance by teachers at Gerald Adams, including a “mentor," and by the head of the Exceptional Student Education department and an Exceptional Student Education Program Specialist. Ms. Dupper was observed on one occasion by Ms. Herrin when every student in Ms. Dupper’s “learning center” left the area while she continued to “teach.” One student stood on a table dancing, uncorrected by Ms. Dupper. On two occasions, a student left Ms. Dupper’s classroom altogether and were taken back to Ms. Dupper’s classroom before she realized they were gone. On nine different occasions during the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Herrin requested a discipline plan from Ms. Dupper. No plan was ever provided. Ms. Dupper’s use of Galileo was minimal during the 2007-2008 school year. The system contained a checklist, by domain or skill, which was intended for use by a teacher in determining whether each student was learning the listed skills. Ms. Dupper rarely used the system, however, only logging into the Galileo system 19 times. Nine of those times were on the same day and four were on another day. Other Pre-K teachers utilized Galileo an average of 100 times more than Ms. Dupper. Ms. Herrin’s 2007-2008 annual evaluation of Ms. Dupper, dated April 4, 2008, found that her performance had declined and was “Unsatisfactory.” Ms. Herrin found Ms. Dupper “Unsatisfactory” in Management of Student conduct, Instruction, Organization and Development, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Evaluation of Instructional Needs. Ms. Dupper’s performance in Professional Responsibilities also declined due to her failure to complete Individual Education Plans on time, incomplete and inaccurate progress notes, and her failure to follow suggestions for improvement. The 90-Day Probation Period. As a result of her continuing decline in performance, Ms. Dupper was informed on April 9, 2008, that she was being placed on a 90-day probation period pursuant to Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. She was informed that her deficiencies included the inability to manage student conduct, lack of lesson planning, inadequate knowledge of subject matter, lack of student progress evaluation, and inadequate professional responsibility. Ms. Dupper was given suggestions for how to improve her deficiencies over the summer break, suggestions which Ms. Dupper did not follow. While on probation, Ms. Dupper was also offered an opportunity to transfer to another school, an offer which was not accepted. On June 6, 2008, at the request of Ms. Dupper’s union representative, a second annual evaluation was performed by Ms. Herrin. While Ms. Herrin found some improvement, she found that, overall, Ms. Dupper’s performance was “Unsatisfactory.” Ms. Dupper was on probation during the 2007-2008 school year a total of 62 days, excluding holidays and “professional days.” During the summer months between the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Ms. Dupper, who was not teaching, failed to follow any of Ms. Herrin’s suggestions for personal improvement opportunities. The first day of school for the 2008-2009 school year and the commencement of the 90-day probation period was August 11, 2008. Ms. Herring formally observed Ms. Dupper during the third week of September 2008, and on October 2, 2008. Assistant Principal Willis observed Ms. Dupper on October 8, 2008. Ms. Dupper’s performance and use of Galileo continued to be unsatisfactory, despite continuing efforts of the administration staff to assist her, as more particularly and accurately described in paragraphs 30 through and including 35 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order. Additionally, Ms. Dupper continued to fail to prevent her very young students from leaving the classroom without her knowledge. Excluding non-school days, Ms. Dupper was given more than 120 days from the commencement of her probation period until her probation period was considered ended in October 2008. By the middle of October 2008, Ms. Herrin concluded that Ms. Dupper had not evidenced satisfactory improvement in her teaching skills. Ms. Herrin’s conclusions concerning Ms. Dupper’s unsatisfactory performance as a teacher, which were not contradicted, are credited. The Decision to Terminate Ms. Dupper’s Employment By letter dated October 30, 2008, Ms. Herrin recommended to Randy Acevedo, Superintendent of the Monroe County School District, that Mr. Acevedo review documentation concerning Ms. Dupper’s 90-day probation period and make a recommendation pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, concerning her continued employment. Ms. Herrin provided Mr. Acevedo with the following information for his review: Attached please find a copy of the professional development plan and this year’s observations conducted by Assistant Principal, Grace Willis and me. The remaining documentation for the 2007 and 2008 school years have been submitted to personnel. I have also attached the follow up documentation, the review of the 90-Day plan and the observations that outline the deficiencies that still remain. This teacher’s performance remains unsatisfactory. Petitioner’s Exhibit 7. Missing from the information provided for Mr. Acevedo’s consideration was any information concerning student performance assessed annually by state or local assessment. By letter dated November 14, 2008, Mr. Acevedo informed Ms. Dupper that he was going to recommend to the School Board at its December 16, 2008, meeting that her employment as a teacher be terminated. By letter dated November 18, 2008, Ms. Dupper requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge her anticipated termination of employment. The School Board accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation at its December 16, 2008, meeting, suspending Ms. Dupper without pay, pending a final determination of whether her employment should be terminated. Student Performance Assessment. The Florida legislature has specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, a “Student assessment program for public schools.” This assessment program is to be considered in evaluating student performance as part of a teacher’s evaluation. The assessment program, however, does not apply to Pre-K students. “FLICKRS” is a state assessment tool intended for use in evaluating Kindergarten students. FLICKRS allows schools to evaluate whether a Kindergarten student is actually ready for Kindergarten-level work. FLICKRS is not utilized by the School Board to evaluate the progress of Pre-K students. The School Board has not developed any means of annually assessing the performance of Pre-K students. As a consequence, the decision to terminate Ms. Dupper’s employment by the School Board was not based upon any annual assessment of her students’ performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order: (a) dismissing the charges of the Administrative Complaint; (b) providing that Ms. Dupper be immediately reinstated to the position from which she was terminated; and (c) awarding Ms. Dupper back salary, plus benefits, to the extent benefits accrued during her suspension, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Clinton Black, Esquire Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor Islamorada, Florida 33036 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Randy Acevedo, Superintendent Monroe County School Board 241 Trumbo Road Key West, Florida 33040-6684 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
