Findings Of Fact A review of Exhibit 1, the personnel record of Respondent, discloses that Respondent has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board since 1959; that he has taught science at various junior high schools and middle schools from 1958 to present; that deficiencies in maintaining discipline in his classes, judgment, maturity, and planning have been noted on his evaluation reports throughout that period; his evaluation reports have generally been below average; after extending his probationary period he was granted continuing contract status in 1971; and his evaluations have been unsatisfactory for the last three years. All of the witnesses called by Petitioner have been associated with Respondent in the school system and all considered his performance as a classroom teacher unsatisfactory. Specific incidents observed by the witnesses which led to their evaluation an characterization of Respondent include: Children in Respondents classroom intentionally hyperventilating and passing out while Respondent was in the room presumably continuing his instruction. Children in Respondent's classes more disorderly, rowdy, and noisy than in any other class. Noises from Respondent's classes of sufficient volume to disturb adjacent classes. Respondent continuing his reading of a lesson in a voice that could be heard only a few feet away while the students in other parts of the classroom talked, fought, played games and otherwise ignored Respondent. No rational grading system adopted or used by Respondent. This resulted in numerous complaints from both students and their parents respecting the grades assigned. In this respect more complaints were registered against Respondent's grades that any other teacher. Respondent often sent children to the principal for minor disciplinary problems while he ignored much more serous misconduct. Lack of coherence in Respondent's instruction in jumping from one subject to another with no plan and no continuity. Children in Respondents class recognized his inability to control the class and evinced lack of respect for Respondent. Despite numerous counselling sessions and help, Respondent never produced adequate lesson plans for his classes. Lack of plans led to less continuity in the lessons and a lower teaching level. A combination of lack of discipline, lack of proper planning and inconsistent reaction to the students in his class led to the inevitable conclusion that the students in Respondent's classes were not learning those things he was supposed to teach them. On one or more occasions Respondent disobeyed the orders of his principal to come to his office to discuss problems. respondent refused to be counselled without a union representative present. Following nearly three years of counselling, guidance and attempts to assist Respondent to improve his effectiveness at Fitzgerald Middle School, the school authorities apparently determined that Respondent should be terminated and requested an evaluation of Respondent by a Professional Practices Council Evaluator. Respondent was advised some two weeks before his arrival that an evaluator would come to observe Respondent conduct his classes and that the evaluator would submit a report following the observation. Pursuant thereto the evaluator spent February 27, 28, and March 1, 1979 observing Respondent conduct his classes. His report of this evaluation comprises Exhibit 11. In this report Respondent was evaluated as unsatisfactory in the following duties expected of a teacher: Grade record book from which students grades are taken was improperly kept and contained insufficient information to make a rational determination of the grade actually earned by each student. Respondent made no distinction among his diverse students and consequently gave them all the same assignments. Respondents lack of control over the classroom was so inadequate that an incredible amount of cheating was going on. Answers to questions were exchanged orally between students during tests and this was ignored by Respondent. As a result there was no incentive for learning and little, if any, learning took place in Respondents classes. Classroom management and discipline was practically non-existent. As stated in Exhibit 11: "Mr. Barlow cannot discipline his students well enough to get their cooperation to carry out what would otherwise be an almost acceptable (1.e. needing some definite improvement) program. Thereafter the evaluator submitted three pages of specific incidents occurring in Respondent's classes on February 27, and three more pages of incidents which generally support the conclusion that in such an atmosphere either teaching or learning is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Planning of lessons by Respondent, both short and long-term, was so inadequate that these plans across school year 1978-79 were described to "violate, more than follow, those guidelines" [established for lesson plans]. Instead of having self-confidence and self-sufficiency in exercising authority Respondent "radiates insecurity in the classroom". Following these unsatisfactory reports the evaluator concludes that Respondent's students are being deprived of a vital part of their education. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of all other witnesses. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Testifying in his own behalf Respondent did not deny that his classes were disorderly and unruly, or that the incident of the children in his class hyperventilating and passing out occurred. He contends that if he had more administrative help he could operate effectively in a classroom. His problems at Fitzgerald Middle School he blames largely on the Assistant Principal in charge of the seventh grade teachers, who, while frequently visiting Respondent's classes, undermined him. Other than Respondent's testimony no credible evidence was submitted that the Assistant Principal was doing anything other than trying to help Respondent improve his performance.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is used in Section 23.167, Florida Statutes. By memo dated November 6, 1981, all principals in Pinellas County were advised by Seymour Brown, Director, Secondary Placement and Substitute Teachers, that Thomas A. Rateau, Petitioner, was eligible to substitute in their schools as a teacher in business education and mathematics for grades 7 through 12. That substitute teacher offer was conditioned upon Rateau passing the November 11, 1981, physical examination. Rateau passed this examination. The principal at Dunedin Senior High School needed a teacher in business education to complete the semester ending January 25, 1982. He reviewed the applications on file in the office of Dr. Seymour Brown, interviewed Petitioner, and selected Petitioner to fill the vacancy at his school. The principal notified Dr. Brown of his choice and Petitioner was offered a contract for a teaching position in the Pinellas County school system for the 1981-82 school year for a period of 32 duty days beginning November 30, 1981, and ending January 25, 1982, which Petitioner accepted (Exhibit 2). This offer and acceptance were conditioned upon acceptable certification by licensed medical practitioner on a medical information form provided by the Personnel Department (Exhibit 2). At his option Petitioner took the medical information form to his attending physician, Dr. Guiterrez, who, on November 24, 1981, conducted a complete physical examination. Dr. Guiterrez summarized Petitioner's condition as "physically healthy." Following this entry the box checked provided: "Has permanent physical limitations acceptable for this job. Re-examine before transfer to another position." Dr. Guiterrez also completed the School Board form (Exhibit 6) in which he wrote or checked the following: Diagnosis: Status Post-spinal Surgery Prognosis: Fair Medication Prescribed: Bufferin Dosage: Restrictions, If Any: No heavy lifting Eligible To Work: Yes Under My Care: Yes The physical examination conducted by Dr. Guiterrez was forwarded' to the School Board examining physician, Dr. Joseph A. Baird. Dr. Baird had Petitioner complete the medical information part of Exhibit 12. Therein Petitioner acknowledged that he had had back surgery, that he has a current medical problem with his back, that he has received worker's compensation, and that he has physical limitations. In describing his worker's compensation claim (Exhibit 12), Petitioner stated that while employed by the U.S. Postal Service an industrial accident caused by a failure of equipment exacerbated an unknown, pre-existing condition which was determined to be a tumor growing in his spinal column. Surgery subsequently removed that part of the tumor that had grown out of the bottom of his spine. He was terminated by the postal service because he could no longer perform the continually heavy lifting required by his postal service job. Dr. Baird questioned Petitioner about his back problems and learned that if the tumor again grows out of his spine Petitioner may need additional surgery. Dr. Baird observed the scar on Petitioner's back, had Petitioner bend at the waist and checked his knee-jerk reflexes. This examination took less than five minutes. Dr. Baird then contacted Patricia Diskey, Employment Coordinator for the School Board, and discussed with her Petitioner's condition and asked her to provide him with the physical requirements for a teacher of business education in a Pinellas County high school. Following this discussion, Dr. Baird submitted the form letter to the office of Dr. Brown stating simply that Petitioner did not meet the physical requirements necessary for employment in the Instructional Department of the Pinellas County School Board (Exhibit 11). At the hearing Patricia Diskey testified that the job requirements for a high school business education teacher included the ability to do frequent and heavy lifting of typewriters, computer components, and other office equipment used to teach business education; to be able to bend down to clearly see the data processing screen used by the students; to move numerous books from classroom to classroom; to transport equipment to the school's service center several blocks distant, take the equipment into the center for repairs and return with replacement equipment; and to stand for long periods of time. She also testified that business education teachers would be required to lift and move equipment around the classroom weighing up to 100 pounds. However, no evidence was presented that a demonstration of such physical ability was ever required of a business education teacher in the Pinellas County school system. Dr. Baird never includes a muscle-tone test in the examinations he conducts for teacher applicants. Petitioner was not requested to demonstrate his capability or inability to lift equipment used in the classroom. Physically, Petitioner is a well-developed white male. Exhibit 12 shows him 5 feet eleven and one-half inches in height and weight of 225 pounds. He is not obese and gives the appearance of one having greater than average strength normally found in men his age. Respondent presented evidence that it has employed disabled persons, and a list of those handicapped persons employed in Respondent's secondary schools was presented as Exhibit 9. It is noted that the majority of those handicapped employees listed have permanent type disabilities such as blind in one eye, deformed arm, legally blind, uses crutches, part of limb missing, speech impediment, hearing problems, limps, crippled leg, etc. Respondent also presented evidence that persons suffering back problems were hired by the School Board (Exhibit 10), one of whom was a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, but produced no evidence that it had employed a teacher so handicapped.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked for conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail which is allegedly violative of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6A-4.37 and 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the argeements of counsel, the stipulation of the parties entered on June 7, 1979, and the entire record compiled herein, the following facts are found. The Florida Professional Practices Council (sometimes referred to as "Petitioner") received a report from the Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools on October 24, 1977, indicating that the district had reason to believe that there might be probable cause for revocation of the teaching certificate of John A. Lettelleir, Respondent. Pursuant to this report, and under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's staff conducted a professional inquiry into the matter and on January 9, 1978, made its report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council. The Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exists to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teacher's certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause and directed the filing of a Petition on January 9, 1978, pursuant to the authority vested under Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education, and Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. In conclusionary allegations, the Petition cites that the Respondent engaged in acts which are "immoral, seriously reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee and was not a proper example or model for students and not in the best interests of the health and safety of students" contra to Section 231.09; 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6A-4.37 and 6B-1, Rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent currently holds a Post-graduate, Rank II, Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 347804, covering elementary education, early childhood and junior college, which is valid through June 30, 1985. Respondent was employed in the Public Schools of Pinellas County as a teacher at Maximo Elementary School during the 1976-77 school year. Respondent resigned from his teaching position in the Pinellas County School System in October, 1977. Respondent chaperoned a three day Easter trip for male and female school children from Maximo Elementary School in April of 1976. The trip required three nights away from home for these children. On two of these nights, Respondent shared a sleeping bag with one of his male students. On both nights, Respondent improperly touched the student. During the fall of 1976, three male school children from Maximo Elementary School spent the night at Respondent`s home. The boys slept in Respondent's bedroom. Respondent slept in a double bed with one of the three students and improperly touched the student. Sandra McMichael and Louanne Crawford, teachers in the Pinellas County School System, appeared and testified respecting their relationship with the Respondent. Ms. McMichael and Ms. Crawford both related their professional involvement with Respondent and it suffices to say, in summary fashion, that they considered the Respondent a person of unquestionable character. (TR 20-57 of Joint Exhibit 2.) During the hearing, Respondent testified respecting the agony which the subject incident has brought to his family. Among other things, he stated that he only stipulated to the facts contained in Joint Exhibit 1 based on counsel's advice and their considered joint opinion that without regard to the outcome of his proof or innocence by a contested hearing in this matter, that ultimately he would have gained nothing based on the wide publicity which attaches to such hearings involving public figures. Therefore, Respondent, while maintaining his innocence of the material accusations against him, reluctantly entered into the stipulation which admits improper touching of a male student, in order to satisfy the apparent interpretation of Rule 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education during a prior hearing in this matter on August 15, 1979. Such an interpretation requires an admission of wrongdoing as a predicate to surrender of a teacher's certificate for less than permanent revocation. Based on the foregoing and the parties' joint stipulation for less than permanent revocation, i.e., five years, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that sufficient basis exists to support a favorable recommendation to the Board of Education for a five (5) year revocation with the running of the revocation period commencing in October, 1977, the date of Respondent's resignation from the Pinellas County School System. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's teacher's certificate, No. 347804, be revoked for a period of five (5) years with entry of the revocation period commencing on October, 1977, the date of Respondent's resignation from the Pinellas County School System. ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's professional services contract with the Hernando County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the agency responsible for the administration of the school system in Hernando County. The School Board has employed Mr. Ellison almost continuously since 1979. In addition to teaching, he has coached students in various sports. Until September 16, 2005, he taught pursuant to a professional services contract at Central High School. On September 15, 2005, Mr. Ellison's 1996 Dodge truck was located at the school's auto shop. Mr. Ellison had driven it there. Students studying automobile repair were to attempt to repair his truck's air conditioner, which was not functioning. Mr. Ellison had provided the truck to the auto shop personally after having made arrangements with the automobile repair teachers the previous day. He was aware that the repair job was to be accomplished by students. Peter Koukos, the vocational instructor, informed Mr. Ellison, that in order to repair the air conditioner the glove box would have to be removed. Mr. Ellison assented to this procedure. While attempting to remove the glove box, students discovered a loaded Power Plus .38 special revolver in it. The students who found it duly reported its presence to Mr. Koukos, who took custody of it. It was eventually delivered to the school resource officer, Deputy Sheriff Debra Ann Miles, who placed it into evidence in accordance with Hernando County Sheriff's Office procedures. It is found as a fact that the revolver was owned by Mr. Ellison and it was he who had placed the weapon in the glove box of the truck and it was he who had driven it onto the Central High School grounds on September 15, 2005. Mr. Ellison had experienced a previous incident with this weapon on January 21, 2002. This incident was precipitated when a citizen reported to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office that a man was standing by a parked pick-up truck in the Fort Dade Cemetery with a handgun in the left front pocket of his jacket. A deputy was dispatched to the cemetery. The deputy stopped a truck as it exited the cemetery. The truck the deputy stopped was being driven by Mr. Ellison and it was the same 1996 Dodge that was involved in the September 15, 2005, incident. On the prior occasion Mr. Ellison related to the deputy that he was having domestic difficulties and the deputy, with Mr. Ellison's permission, seized the weapon which was in his possession. The weapon seized by the deputy was the very same .38 special revolver found at Central High School on September 15, 2005. The weapon was released to Mr. Ellison on February 12, 2002, because his actions with it on January 21, 2002, were completely lawful. He thereafter placed the weapon in the glove box of the 1996 Dodge. He forgot that it was there and if he had thought about it, he would not have left it in the glove box of the truck when he delivered it to the students in the auto repair shop on September 15, 2005. There was no intent to bring the weapon on campus. Mr. Ellison is aware of the harm that can ensue from carelessly leaving weapons in an environment where curious students might retrieve it and harm themselves or others. He has never denied that the gun was his or that anyone other than himself was responsible for the weapon being brought to the campus. Mr. Ellison knew that School Board Policy 3.40(6) provides that no one except law enforcement and security officers may possess any weapon on school property. This was explained to all of the teachers in a pre-school orientation session conducted August 1-5, 2005, which Mr. Ellison attended. Procedures to be followed in the event a gun or other dangerous weapon was found on campus were reviewed during this orientation session. These procedures are contained in the Central High School Blue Book, 2005-06 and Mr. Ellison knew this at the time he drove his truck onto school property. Mr. Ellison was and is familiar with the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct that addresses the behavior of teachers. He is aware that he has a duty to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions that may be harmful. Ed Poore, now retired, was an employee of the School Board for 31 years. He served in the district office as administrator of personnel and human resources, and specifically, was involved with the administration of discipline and the enforcement of School Board policy. Mr. Poore stated that intent was not a factor in determining whether a violation of School Board Policy 3.40(6) had occurred. He further noted that the Policy does not provide for a sanction for its violation. He testified that in determining a sanction for a violation of this section, he had observed in the past that the School Board had considered the sanction imposed on others in similar situations, the individual person's time and service as a teacher, and any other pertinent mitigating circumstances. Mr. Ellison's character was described by several witnesses as follows: Brent Kalstead, the Athletic Director at Hernando High School, who has been a teacher for 18 years, stated that he had coached with Mr. Ellison and that he had entrusted his son to him so that he could teach him baseball. He said that Mr. Ellison was dedicated to the youth of Hernando County. Marietta Gulino, is Mr. Ellison's girlfriend and a school bus driver. She stated that Mr. Ellison often takes care of children after working hours. Richard Tombrink has been a circuit judge in Hernando County for 17 years. He has known Mr. Ellison for 15 years as a baseball coach and at social events. He said that Mr. Ellison is committed to educating children and has great character. Lynn Tombrink is the wife of Judge Tombrink and is a teacher at Parrott Middle School and has known Mr. Ellison for 20 years. Ten years ago she taught in the room next to him. She would want him to teach her children. Regina Salazo is a housewife. She stated that Mr. Ellison was her son's pitching coach and that he loves children and they love him. Timothy Collins, a disabled man, said that his grandson and Mr. Ellison's grandson play baseball together and that he knows Mr. Ellison to be professional, a no nonsense type of person, and a gentleman. It is his opinion that the School Board needs people like him. Gary Buel stated that Mr. Ellison was his assistant baseball coach and that Mr. Ellison was dedicated and motivated. He described him as selfless. The parties stipulated that if called, the following witnesses would testify that they know Mr. Ellison to be a good, decent, honorable man; that they know him to be a good educator and coach; that they are aware of the circumstances surrounding the gun being in his truck on School Board property; that they do not believe that termination is the appropriate action in this case; and that he would remain an effective teacher: Carole Noble of Ridge Manor; Rob and Vickie Fleisher of Floral City; Vinnie Vitalone of Brooksville; Tim Whatley of Brooksville; Rick Homer of Brooksville; Rob and Candy Taylor of Spring Hill; Robbie Fleisher; Mark Frazier of Brooksville; Miya Barber of Brooksville; Nate Dahmer of Brooksville; Hank Deslaurier of Spring Hill; John and Mary Jo McFarlane of Brooksville; Pete Crawford of Brooksville; Patrick Ryan of Tampa; Ed Bunnell of Spring Hill; and Alan and Cecilia Solomon of Brooksville. It is found as a fact, based on the record of hearing, that Mr. Ellison is an excellent teacher who works well with children and whose character is above reproach. He is not the type of person who would consciously bring a weapon onto school grounds or commit any other purposeful act which might endanger students. Mr. Ellison has not been the subject of prior disciplinary actions.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Final Order imposing a 30-calendar-day suspension without pay be imposed as a penalty in this cause, and that Respondent, Michael Ellison, be reinstated to a teaching status and be awarded back pay and benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled since November 15, 2005, less the 30-calendar-day suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wendy Tellone, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601-2397
Findings Of Fact Thomas L. Berkner, Petitioner, holds a continuing contract status as principal of elementary school in Orange County. During the 1977-1978 school year Petitioner was assigned as principal of the Winter Garden Elementary School which had a student enrollment of approximately 250 and consisted of kindergarten, first and second grades only. The Orange County School Board consolidated Winter Garden and Dillard Street Elementary Schools for the school year 1978-1979 leaving one principal for the school which retained the separate facilities, but was called Dillard Street Elementary School. The job of principal of the consolidated schools was given to the Dillard Street School principal and Petitioner was transferred to the position of Program Coordinator, ESEA Title I at the same salary he was paid as principal. The ESEA Title I Program is a federally funded project to serve economically disadvantaged and educationally deprived or disadvantaged children in grades 1, 2, and 3 but math is extended to grades 4, 5, and 6. The pay grade for Program Coordinator Title I was pay grade 46 and when first assigned Petitioner's personnel records reflected this pay grade (Exhibit 3). However, the records were corrected to reflect his continuing contract status and his pay grade was increased to 48 (Exhibit 4) the same pay grade for elementary school principals for schools with enrollment below 800. Although program coordinators are on annual contract status, Petitioner does not, while serving in this capacity, lose the continuing contract status as an elementary school Principal which he acquired in 1970. Scholastic and experience requirements for various positions in the Orange County school system are revised when these positions are advertised for applicants and generally reflect the highest qualities available in the local job market. At the present time elementary school principals and program coordinators are required to hold a masters degree. In addition program coordinators must be certified in elementary education and supervision, and have a minimum of five years teaching experience at the elementary level. Elementary principals must be certified in elementary school administration and supervision, and have a minimum of five years teaching experience (Exhibits 5, 7, and 9). Both principals and program coordinators perform primarily administrative functions as opposed to teaching functions. The principal is given overall responsibility for the school to which he is assigned and has certain statutory duties and authority that are not visited upon other positions. These include administrative responsibility for evaluating the educational program at his school, recommending the transfer and assignment of personnel at his school, administrative responsibility for school records, authority to administer corporal punishment and suspension of students, and perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Superintendent. Those duties assigned by the Superintendent are contained in the Job Description, Elementary School Principal (Exhibit 7) and phrased in the lexicon of education administrators, call upon the principal to promote, develop, coordinate, formulate, involve, manage and initiate programs and relationships to optimize the effectiveness of the school. The job description of the Program Coordinator ESEA, Title I (Exhibits 5 and 9) assigns to him responsibility for supervision of the Title I Program. The program coordinator's typical duties include interpreting the philosophy and goals of the program, assisting teachers, planning activities, participating in program planning, assisting principals and staffs, preparing and submitting reports and records, and performing other duties that may be assigned. Both jobs involve dealing with teachers and students, supervision, and administrative functions in carrying out the program for which each is responsible. The principal carries out his duties in the school to which he is assigned and works from his office while the program coordinator is responsible for the Title I program in several schools and spends a large part of his time away from the "office" he shares with other program coordinators. The principal has a secretary while the program coordinator must share a secretary with other program coordinators. However, one witness described the secretary at one elementary school as a school secretary and that the secretary did not work solely for the principal. Of those 15 typical duties of an elementary school principal listed on Exhibit 7, the program coordinator performs all but 5 and they involve duties that may be described as school-oriented rather than program-oriented. Of those 7 typical duties listed on Exhibit 9, Job Description for ESEA Title I Program Coordinator, the elementary school principal performs all except serve on Title I advisory council. Several witnesses testified that the position of principal was more prestigious than that of program coordinator, however, when all the evidence is considered it appears that prestige, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. While testifying in his own behalf Petitioner averred that as a program administrator he had no administrative duties and no personnel duties. Other program coordinators testified that they did have administrative and personnel duties. Petitioner acknowledged that most of the typical duties listed on Exhibit 7 were also performed by program coordinators.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's employment contract with Petitioner should be terminated for violation of School Board policies.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the local school board responsible for hiring, firing and overseeing all employees working for the School Board and/or within the Lee County Public School system (also called the "School District" herein). Respondent is an employee of the School Board, serving as an electronics field technician in the School Board's maintenance department. Respondent has worked for the School Board off and on since 1996, when he was a school bus driver. He has been an electronics technician since 2000. In that position, Respondent oversees the maintenance and repair of clocks, alarms, intercoms, scoreboards, sound and lighting systems, burglary systems, and the like for all schools within the School District. Respondent has never received any form of discipline from the School Board. His record is clear, and he has been commended for his work. His work ethic was viewed by others as consistent with that of similarly-situated employees (although Respondent may take more breaks than others). School District maintenance workers work an eight-hour work day, commencing at 7:00 a.m. (per provisions of the SPALC Contract and Collective Bargaining Agreement). Each worker is expected to arrive at the maintenance area on Canal Street (hereinafter "Canal Street") and be ready to commence work by 7:00 a.m., each morning. The work day generally starts with a briefing of sorts to make sure each worker is aware of his/her tasks for the day. After the briefing, workers pick up tools and supplies from various locations around the Canal Street area and then proceed to the first school site requiring performance of an assigned task. A work day for Respondent could involve driving to any one of the numerous school campuses within the School Board's jurisdiction. Workers are given 30 minutes for lunch each day, including the time it takes to drive to and from the lunch site. In addition, workers are allowed two 15-minute breaks, one in the morning and another in the afternoon. Again, the break time includes the time taken to drive to a break site, if the employee decides to take a break at other than the place he/she is working at that time. Employees are not permitted to do personal business or make unauthorized stops during the work day without prior permission from a supervisor. Respondent is a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve and currently holds the rank/level of E5. He attends regular weekend drills each month and also spends two weeks each year on temporary active duty. Respondent has been in the reserves throughout his tenure with the School Board. There has never been an issue between Petitioner and Respondent concerning Respondent's military status or his taking two weeks each summer to attend to his military duties. Respondent is proud of his military service, as evidenced by the fact that he wore his military uniform during both days of the final hearing.1 In May 2008, Respondent spent 17 days on active duty, serving in Bahrain. This was Respondent's active duty requirement for calendar year 2008. However, he then volunteered for an additional period of active duty in July 2008. This second active duty stint was done in furtherance of his military career and at the suggestion of a superior officer. It was strictly voluntary, but Respondent felt somewhat compelled to "volunteer" based on his superior's comments. Respondent then did his second active duty stint beginning June 28, 2008, and ending July 27, 2008. This period of time coincided with the maintenance department's busiest time for its electronics technicians. The maintenance department annually used the time in between school terms to get various maintenance items completed while it would be the least disruptive to students in the classrooms. The summer period is used to "clean up" things that remain pending from the school year. It is clear that Respondent's supervisors were not happy that Respondent had volunteered to be absent during this busy time, but Respondent was allowed to go on active duty anyway. This left the School Board short-handed as to its needed electronics technicians for that period of time. Respondent's supervisor expressed concern to Respondent about this second period of active duty, specifically that it was occurring during the summer break. Respondent recognized the strain this additional leave put on his co-workers and apologized for that fact. Respondent assured his supervisor it would not happen again. Upon his return from the voluntary active duty, Respondent was told that he was being placed on "suspension of driving privileges," meaning that he could not drive School Board vehicles until further notice. This suspension was based on information gleaned from review of data generated by a new tracking system being used in School Board maintenance vehicles (which will be discussed below). Respondent is of the opinion that the suspension was some sort of retaliation for his having gone on the second active duty tour during June and July. The Global Positioning System--Background Beginning in May 2008, the School Board decided to install global positioning system (GPS) devices in all of its maintenance vehicles. The installation began with 50 randomly selected vehicles of the 150-vehicle fleet. The purpose of the GPS devices was to track School Board vehicles and assure that all vehicles were being utilized properly and in accordance with School Board policies. This measure was prompted by repeated complaints from the public about maintenance vehicles being seen involved in non-school activities or at non-school locations. The GPS system in Respondent's maintenance vehicle was installed on May 22, 2008. The signal from the GPS was instantaneous, but required calibration and installation of certain software before it could be effectively utilized. The GPS became fully functional on June 20, 2008, at 10:07 a.m. The GPS system tracked the location, speed, and duration of stops for the vehicle. This data was maintained on a computer server which could print maps showing a vehicle's movements on any given day or time. The maps could be annotated with the vehicle's speed, length of stay at any one location, and actual driving route. On or about June 27, 2008, William G. Moore, director of School Support for the School Board, was being given a course on the use of the new GPS system and how it worked. During his training, Moore randomly selected some vehicles to review, solely for the purpose of ascertaining how the system tracked and recorded information. One of the vehicles Moore randomly selected was vehicle No. 423, which turned out to be Respondent's work van. Moore did not know Respondent personally and did not know to which of the 150 or so School Board vehicles any one person was assigned. Moore then selected June 26, 2008, randomly as a record to review as part of his training. The June 26, 2008, record for vehicle No. 423 immediately raised red flags in Moore's mind. He observed that the vehicle was at a non-school site for over three hours (although it was later determined to be a training site and a legitimate stop). The vehicle was also shown entering a residential community (although again it was later determined that the driver had permission for that trip). However, based on his initial determination that something was amiss and not having any explanation for those instances, Moore decided to more fully examine the route history for vehicle No. 423. First, he determined that this vehicle was assigned to Respondent. (The vehicle will hereinafter be referred to as the work van.) Moore's further investigation turned up a number of questionable stops and trips by the work van during the period June 20 through June 27, 2008. The findings of his investigation will be set forth in pertinent part below on a day-by-day basis, coupled with explanations from Respondent as to each day's activities. Friday, June 20, 2008 At 10:07 a.m. (when the GPS first started working), the work van was departing from Ft. Myers High School ("Ft. Myers High") en route to Estero High School ("Estero"). Upon arrival at Estero, the van remained parked for five minutes, then left the parking lot and drove around the building to the front entrance of Estero for a period of one minute. Leaving Estero, the work van headed to a residential neighborhood known as the Bimini Circle Subdivision, where it stayed for 11 minutes. The work van then proceeded to a 7-11 Store where it remained for 35 minutes. The next stop was back at Estero where the work van remained for one hour and 46 minutes. At 2:00 p.m., the work van left Estero, stopped briefly at the 7-11 Store, then returned to Canal Street at 2:59 p.m. The School Board perceived several violations of policy gleaned from the information on the GPS for the work van during the June 20, 2008, work day: First, the work van was at Estero for a total of two hours and 13 minutes on this date. The total time at Ft. Myers High for this date is not detailed by the GPS, but would presumably be approximately two and a half hours, i.e., allotting time for driving from Canal Street up until the GPS turned on at 10:07 a.m. Respondent's daily activity log indicates five hours at Estero and three hours at Ft. Myers High. Respondent took two unauthorized stops at a store, presumably for personal reasons, and then spent 11 minutes at a residence during work hours. Respondent took in excess of 30 minutes for his lunch hour (35 minutes at a location, plus an undisclosed amount of time driving to and from that location). Respondent took a longer route back to Canal Street than necessary, presumably wasting time. (Employees were expected to work the entire day, then return to Canal Street precisely at 3:00 p.m. A 30-minute debriefing session, return of tools, etc., would occur and then employees would be released from duty at 3:30 p.m. Employees were told repeatedly NOT to return to Canal Street until 3:00 p.m.) Respondent explained his actions and refuted the School Board's concerns as follows: Upon leaving Canal Street that morning, Respondent went directly to Ft. Myers High and remained there until 10:07 a.m. The rest of his day, approximately five hours, was dedicated to work at Estero, but included travel time, breaks, and lunch. The two hours and 13 minutes actually at Estero should be supplemented by driving time to the school from Ft. Myers, driving time to his breaks and lunch, driving time to and from his personal errand, and driving time back to Canal Street. Respondent remembers asking for and receiving permission to stop by his wife's house (the residence in the Bimini Circle Subdivision) to retrieve his wallet. The stops at 7-11 Stores were for lunch and two allowable breaks. The longer route back to Canal Street was taken in order to avoid an accident on the shorter route. During June of 2008, technicians would fill out their daily work logs using rounded estimates of time. They made no attempt to precisely state exact periods of time spent at any one job site. Rather, the daily logs were a very general statement of which job sites had been involved in the employee's work that day. (This procedure has subsequently changed, but was extant at all times relevant hereto.) It is clear Respondent took a longer than allowable lunch break on this date. Further, the time taken for breaks, if drive time was included, was in excess of the allotted amounts. It is clear Respondent was actually at Estero for only about half the time recorded on the daily work log. However, under the procedures in place at that time, the work log time entry was not dispositive of his actual time at the site. Monday, June 23, 2008 On this date, the School Board gleaned the following violations of policies from its review of the GPS log: Respondent was at Estero for two hours and nine minutes, but his daily work log indicates six hours at Estero and two hours at Gateway Elementary. The work van made stops at McDonalds and Bank of America on the way to Estero, then at the Bimini Circle address for eight and a half minutes after leaving Estero. Petitioner says any stops for personal business are strictly prohibited while in a School Board vehicle. After a 47-minute stop at Dairy Queen, the work van then proceeded to Gateway where it stayed for approximately two hours. Upon leaving Gateway, the work van stopped at Home Depot--an unauthorized stop--for about 18 minutes. Respondent provides the following explanation and rebuttal concerning the School Board's concerns for that day: Again, his work sheet indicates the correct amount of time actually at Gateway. The remainder of his day, including all travel, breaks, and lunch, was allocated on this time sheet to Estero no matter how long he was actually there. The stops at McDonalds and Bank of America were simply to allow his co-worker (Sheryl Reed) to get an iced tea and to get money for lunch. Respondent maintains that these types of stops were not specifically prohibited and were common practice. Respondent maintains the stop at his wife's house was his break time (although a stop at McDonalds and Bank of America had already occurred that morning). The 47-minute lunch hour was caused by Respondent simply losing track of time. That is, he admits that it was a longer lunch break than allowed, but it was not done intentionally. The stop at Home Depot was to obtain a coaxial wire needed for the Estero job, but the wire was not available. Employees are allowed to shop at local retail stores to acquire equipment or supplies not available through the School Board. However, all such purchases must be made by way of a purchase card (P-Card) so that purchases can be tracked. There is no P-Card receipt for the Home Depot visit on this date, but Respondent maintains that is because no purchase was made. That is, the coaxial wire he was looking for was not available. Reed said that Respondent made personal purchases from Home Depot and Lowe's on occasion during the summer of 2008 (because he was in the process of remodeling his house). He had purchased floor tiles and other items a couple of times a week that summer. However, she cannot remember whether he purchased anything on that particular date. Respondent admits that he did make purchases of home improvement products during work hours and transported the products in the work van to his house. He does not remember making any such stops for purposes during the week of June 20 through 27, 2008. Tuesday, June 24, 2008 On this date, Respondent's daily work log indicates three hours spent at Gateway and five hours spent at Island Coast.2 The GPS indicates the work van was at Gateway for three hours and at Island Coast for one hour and 40 minutes. The School Board also found the following other policy violations: A stop at Weaver's Corner for 36 minutes and 40 seconds, presumably a long lunch made longer by travel time to and from the lunch venue. An unauthorized visit for eight minutes and 40 seconds at a bank. A visit to a gas station for eight minutes, then a short drive to another gas station for five minutes. Respondent provides the following explanation and rebuttal to the School Board's findings: As before, the extended period of time for the Island Coast job site includes travel, breaks, and lunch. However, it would have been more accurate on this day to have split the two job sites equally. The stops at the gas stations were intentionally made so as not to return to Canal Street before the allotted 3:00 p.m., return time. Respondent does not provide any explanation for the longer than allowable lunch break. Wednesday, June 25, 2008 There were three stops on this date listed on Respondent's daily work log: Island Coast (4 hours), Dunbar Community (2 hours), and Ft. Myers High (2 hours). The GPS indicates the work van was at Island Coast for two hours and 11 minutes; at Dunbar Community for 11 minutes and 20 seconds; at Villas Elementary for one hour and 14 minutes; then at Ft. Myers High for four minutes and 40 seconds. Other perceived policy violations included: A short stop at a bank in the Wal-Mart parking lot upon leaving Canal Street. A lunch stop of 42 minutes and 30 seconds, not counting driving time to and from the restaurant. Another stop at Bank of America for in excess of ten minutes. A short, seven and a half-minute stop at a shopping center. Respondent provided the following in rebuttal and response to the School Board's perceived violations of policy: The quick stops at the banks were not prohibited and were common practice. They may have been part of Respondent's break time on that date. The lunch hour ran over, but was not excessive or intentional. It may have also included part of a break he never took that day. Thursday, June 26, 2008 This is the date that Moore initially reviewed in his training session that raised red flags concerning Respondent's time issues. On this date, the daily work log indicates seven hours in training and one hour at Villas Elementary. The School Board's concerns about this date are set forth above, but would also include: An authorized trip during the lunch hour for Respondent to retrieve a lap top which was being delivered by overnight delivery (so the computer would not be left sitting on the front porch). This trip which took approximately 18 minutes, of which 30 seconds was spent stopped at his house. Respondent also took time for lunch before returning to the training site. A circuitous, out-of-the-way route between the training site and the next job site (Villas Elementary). A short stop at a 7-11 Store and then a longer-than- usual route back to Canal Street. Respondent's explanation and rebuttal to the School Board's concerns were as follows: Respondent had permission to make a quick visit to his home during the lunch hour to see why his home alarm had activated. (He does not remember anything about a lap top or a need to retrieve it.) Respondent says that in the 30 seconds his work van was at the house, he exited the vehicle, walked to the house, unlocked the door and entered, turned off the alarm (which had been activated by his dog, who had escaped from his kennel), put his dog back in its kennel, re-set the alarm and left. Respondent was able to do his personal errand and get to the restaurant and eat lunch with his co-workers within the time (one hour) allotted for lunch that day by the trainer. The circuitous route was for the purpose of delivering some money to his daughter at her school. She was waiting for him outside, and he didn't even have to stop the work van to hand off the money. Rather, his daughter reached out and grabbed the money as he rolled past. The stop at the 7-11 Store was to use the rest room. Respondent's testimony concerning the stop at his house is not entirely believable. It would seem to take more than 30 seconds to accomplish the things that he did. However, inasmuch as he made the stop and was still able to join his co-workers in time for lunch, the reason for his home visit is immaterial. Also, the rolling delivery of money to his daughter is very unusual, but there is no evidence that the exchange did not take place in that fashion. Friday, June 27, 2008 This day's daily work log indicates three work sites: Dunbar Middle School (4 hours), Ft. Myers High (2 hours), and Cypress High School (Cypress High)(2 hours). The GPS indicates 33 minutes and 50 seconds at Dunbar; one hour and 47 minutes at Ft. Myers High; and five minutes and 50 seconds at Cypress High. The work van then went back to Dunbar for one hour, 51 minutes and 30 seconds. The School Board's other concerns about time and travel on this date are as follows: After leaving Canal Street that morning, the work van made stops at McDonalds for three minutes and at Lowe's for 15 minutes. There is a stop of one hour and eight minutes at a shopping plaza, presumably a long lunch hour. Respondent's response to the allegations of policy violations for this day are as follows: The McDonalds visit was again an allowable stop (as he understood the policies) for his assistant to get an iced tea. The Lowe's stop was for the purpose of getting concrete anchors needed for a School Board job, but none were available and so no purchase was made on the P-Card. The long lunch hour was just that; he was not thinking clearly because this was just one day prior to going on active duty and he was preoccupied with those thoughts. The extra driving time was due to the fact that after leaving Dunbar, Respondent was called on the radio to go back there for an emergency job. The daily work logs do not correspond exactly with Respondent's work day because that was not the purpose of the logs. The logs were, at that time, simply an indicator of which schools had been visited on any given day. There was no effort by anyone to be exact or precise with the times recorded on the daily logs. The daily logs are essentially of no value in determining where an employee might have been at any point in time on any given day. There is no way to reconcile the GPS times with the daily work logs. Each employee is expected to work a full day. If the number of tasks assigned during the morning meetings at Canal Street did not fill a technician's day, he/she was expected to locate additional work or do work on an on-going project to fill the day.3 Nonetheless, it is often difficult to coordinate a day's activities to make the assignments equate to the exact hours and minutes in a work day. A large part of an employee's time during the work day is spent driving his/her vehicle. The driving time is supposed to be factored into the time spent on a particular work site. Thus, if it took 30 minutes to get to a work site, that time would be added to the time spent actually at the site. Then, when driving to a subsequent work site, the drive time would be assigned to that next site, etc. Employees are on their honor to take breaks and lunch only when allowed and for the time allotted. There is no time clock, so each person must attempt to keep time themselves so as to honor the allotted times. This is often difficult due to slow service at a restaurant, inability to take breaks at a particular time, or other factors. The GPS system has provided the School Board with an effective tool for monitoring its employees' movements and location. However, at all times relevant hereto, the GPS system was in its infancy and the School Board was still learning how to assimilate and read the data generated by the system. Thus, Respondent's activities from June 20 through June 27, 2008, were examined in a way no other employee's had been looked at heretofore. It is, therefore, hard to make a comparative determination of Respondent's actions versus an established norm. Nonetheless, the School Board's findings are supported by the GPS data. That is, the daily work logs are not consistent with time actually spent at particular job sites. Respondent's lunch breaks exceed the allotted 30-minute time period almost every day that was examined. There are stops at local establishments that are not part of the employee's work duties. Some of the routes taken by an employee are not the shortest routes, although it is impossible to ascertain whether they are the best routes based on other extraneous factors. The time spent on breaks, versus travel time, is hard to ascertain with any degree of certainty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Lee County School Board, rescinding the notice of termination and imposing a less stringent penalty, e.g., a period of probation, a letter of reprimand and/or some remedial training, against Respondent, Christopher Rasmussen. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 2009.
The Issue Did Petitioner successfully complete the necessary requirements for the Polk County School Board's (Board) Interim Principal Program as mandated in the Program for Preparing New Principals, promulgated under Section 231.087(5), Florida Statutes, by the Board and if so, should Petitioner be granted certification as a school principal in the Polk County School District?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In accordance with Section 231.087(5), Florida Statutes, the Board adopted a certification program for new principals in Polk County titled Program for Preparing New Principals (Program). All new principals in the Polk County School System are required to successfully complete and be certified under the Program. The Program is composed of several different programs. One of the programs is the Interim Principal Program which provides as follows: Introduction The Interim Principal Program provides a year-long experience which is designed to assist the Interim Principal in enhancing his/her administrative competencies. The Interim Principal Training Program is designed as a support program rather than performance appraisal mechanism. Goals The goal of the Polk County Interim Principal Program is to enable the Interim Principal to: Practice the skills of administration with the support and coaching of a supervisory team. Determine needs, set goals, establish priorities and seek avenues for achieving positive results. Adapt to stressful situations. Effectively and clearly express information orally and through written means, in both formal and informal situations. Develop self-confidence in a work setting and work role. Develop the expertise to manage a school site. Meet the requirements of Section 231.0861 (3), Florida Statutes. Be creative, maintain a positive climate and encourage teamwork within the school organization. Assume responsibilities at the school site with the guidance and support of peer principals. Participate in additional learning experiences to enhance the on-the-job experiences. Program Goals/Strategies Documentation will consist of the Interim Principal's goals expressed in a way which identifies the objective, lists the activities leading to the attainment of the objective, and the expected results in specific, measurable terms when possible. Two types of goals are to be formulated by the Interim Principal. They are: Organizational Goals Professional Growth Goals (developmental) The Interim Principal will formulate a minimum of two (2) goals within each of the categories. Formative Checklists These instruments are based on the Florida Principal Competencies and Job Function/Task Analyses. They are used as resources for identifying developmental needs of the Interim Principal and may provide a basis for the goals and related strategies and/or the off-site experiences and other training activities. Developmental Activities Program This is a calendar of events/activities which lists the specific activities in which the Interim Principal participates during the school year. These activities may be related to district, regional and state-wide training workshops or any off-site experiences in which the Interim Principal participates. Handbook of Helpful Hints for the First Year Principal Summative Checklist The handbook contains a "list of things to do" for the first year principal and is used by the Interim Principal to document areas of focus related to job expectations. Items are checked-off as they are handled. Supervisory Team The supervisory team for an Interim Principal consists of: The appropriate area superintendent Two peer principals Human Resource Development representative The two peer principals are selected by the area superintendent in consultation with the Human Resource Development representative and Interim Principal. They will also serve as members of his/her support team. The supervisory team's function is to review the Interim Principal's program and to provide input regarding the progress of the Interim Principal to insure the completion of his/her goals and developmental activities program. Each member of the supervisory team will interact with the Interim Principal at the school at varying times during the year. At least three (3) team conferences will be held with the Interim Principal, one meeting by the end of month three, one by the end of month eight and one by the end of month eleven. These meetings are in addition to the regular meetings with the area superintendent as a part of the district's performance appraisal system. Support Team Support team consists of: 1. Two peer principals The support team provides guidance and aid to the Interim Principal in the development of the goals and assists the Interim Principal as needed. Support team members serve as professional resource persons with whom the Interim Principal may consult during the year. Portfolio A portfolio for each Interim Principal will be housed in the Area Superintendent's office. The portfolio will include the names of the support staff, the written development goals, the formative checklists, Developmental Activities Program, "Handbook For The First Year Principal" checklist and a copy of the annual performance appraisal forms. Performance Appraisal The evaluation process for Interim Principals will be the same as that for experienced principals, and the same performance appraisal instruments will be used. Procedures Procedure Dates/Time Parameters Step No. 1 First/Month The Human Resource Development representative will provide an orientation concerning the Interim Principal Program, with emphasis on documentation methods. The Interim Principal and previous supervisor complete formative checklists related to Florida Principal Competencies and Job Function/Task Analyses. Interim Principal plans potential goals. Step No. 2 End of First Month The Interim Principal schedules a meeting with area superintendent and Human Resource Development representative to discuss possible goal statements, discuss formative checklists, select members of peer support team, and schedule supervisory team meetings. Step No. 3 Second Month The Interim Principal and Human Resource Development representative meet to establish Developmental Activities Program and to devise an action plan for the attainment of the potential developmental goals. Step No. 4 End of Second Month The Interim Principal prepares annual goals to include at least two developmental (professional growth) goals and two organizational goals. He/she submits copy to Area Superintendent and Human Resource Development representative. These goals will be a part of the district performance appraisal procedure. The Interim Principal meets with the peer principals to provide them with an orientation to the school, its programs, etc. Step No. 5 Third Month The Interim Principal experiences a two hour "shadowing activity" by each peer principal on separate dates. Peer principals record observations which will be shared at the initial meeting of the supervisory team to be scheduled by the end of the third month. The Interim Principal also may schedule time to shadow each of the peer principals prior to their shadowing visit. Shadowing experiences may occur throughout the interim principal program. Step No. 6 End of Third Month The Interim Principal schedules the initial meeting of supervisory team and provides agenda. First half of the meeting should include a status report of activities/progress made on each of the organizational and developmental goals. Second half of agenda will involve support team and Interim Principal in any additional planning that might be appropriate. The peer principals also discuss observations from their "shadowing" experience. **Additional meetings of the supervisory/support team may be scheduled on a group or individual member basis as needed. Step No. 7 End of Fifth Month The Interim Principal meets with the peer principals to review goals and strategies and to seek their input concerning goal/strategy adjustment and/or revision. Step No. 8 End of Eighth Month The Interim Principal schedules a second team meeting. The purpose is to prepare for major activities in function/task areas as are appropriate to the calendar. Plans and concerns are shared. Team members provide input and assistance. Step No. 9 Eleventh Month The Interim Principal schedules the final meeting of supervisory team and provides agenda. The purpose of the meeting is to review the results obtained by the Interim Principal in reference to his/her goals and participation in DAP activities and to reach a consensus among team members concerning a recommendation for Level II certification. Step No. 10 Eleventh Month The Area Superintendent and Human Resource Development representative verify portfolio. The Area Superintendent completes summary appraisal forms (if necessary) and makes the appropriate recommendation to the superintendent related to Level II certification. In 1996, Petitioner was appointed by Dr. John Stewart, who was then Superintendent of the Polk County Schools, to participate in the Interim Principal Program. Petitioner was assigned to the Haines City High School as principal for the 1996-97 school year, and remained there as principal through the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner had not participated in the Principal Intern Program. Shortly after being appointed as Interim Principal, Petitioner, in consultation with his area superintendent, Carolyn Baldwin, selected Sharon Knowles and David Lewis as his peer principals, who together with Carolyn Baldwin and the Human Resource Development representative, William P. Strouse, was the Team for the Petitioner's Interim Principal Program. As required by the Interim Principal Program, William Spouse conducted the orientation program for all new interim principals for the Polk County School District on September 30, 1996. The Interim Principal Program is driven by the interim principal who has the obligation of organizing the activities and scheduling of the activities and meetings. Petitioner did not schedule any activities or meetings in his Interim Principal Program during the Fall of 1996. In December 1996, Carolyn Baldwin directed David Lewis to set up an appointment with Petitioner for an orientation with Petitioner at Haines City High School The orientation occurred in January 1997. The orientation consisted of a walk around the campus of Haines City High School and a discussion that focused on the concern for the number of uncertified personnel on the staff at that time and the need for improving student achievement. On April 3, 1997, prior to any Team meeting, Petitioner was provided a copy of the Administrative Performance Appraisal (Appraisal) completed by Carolyn Baldwin, Area Superintendent. The categories provided in the Appraisal only provided for "Above Expectations," "At Expectations," and "Below Expectations." Although Ms. Baldwin had some reservations, she, in fairness to Petitioner, rated him "at expectation" in all 19 of the Performance Expectations listed in the Appraisal. To the Performance Expectation "Commitment to School Mission" Ms. Baldwin added the comment "real sense of commitment to Haines City High School." To the Performance Expectation "Managing Interaction" Ms. Baldwin added the comment "develop a system for prompt attention to parents with problems." The Appraisal also included three individual or unit goals stated by Petitioner as goals to be accomplished. Ms. Baldwin rated Petitioner "at expectations" on all of Petitioner's stated goals. After Petitioner's stated goal, "Enhance and improve the overall appearance and function of the school - this 1st impression for the community, parents, staff and students should be one to be proud of, appealing, and reflective of the academic attitude of the school," Ms. Baldwin added the comment "school climate enhanced significantly in this area, good public relations." After the meeting with David Lewis, there was no further formal activity in Petitioner's Interim Principal Program until April 1997. On April 16, 1997, the Team met with Petitioner. During this meeting, the Team reviewed Petitioner's program and found that there were no interim program professional development goals, no development activities, no complete developmental monthly activities plans, and no peer shadowing had taken place. Also at the April 16, 1997, meeting, Petitioner was advised that it was unlikely that Team would recommend him for certification under the Interim Principal Program. Petitioner proceeded to work on the deficiencies expressed by the Team at the April 16, 1997, meeting. After the April 16, 1997, meeting, the Team expressed concern related to Petitioner's complacency with respect to the Interim Principal Program and Petitioner's level of completion up to that point. It was suggested, and agreed to by the Team, that Knowles, Lewis, and Baldwin would complete an analysis of their interactions with Petitioner related to the Florida Principals Competencies. During April and May 1997, Petitioner conducted shadowing activities and peer principal visits with Lewis and Knowles. On June 11, 1997, Carolyn Baldwin met with Petitioner and discussed her concerns as well as Petitioner's concerns regarding Petitioner's activities, job performance as Principal of Haines City High School, and his progress in the Program. The meeting apparently ended on a positive note. On June 13, 1997, Petitioner conducted another shadowing at the Haines City High School. In June 1997, the Team met to determine Petitioner's areas of need and development. Petitioner was neither invited nor did he attend this meeting. In June 1997, Strouse circulated a list of the 19 Florida School Principal Competencies among the Team members and requested that each Team member identify those areas in which Petitioner had developmental needs. Strouse took the areas in which all members of the Team specified that Petitioner had developmental needs and developed a program for Petitioner to address those needs. This program was titled Florida Principal Competencies -- Analysis of Developmental Needs for Lonnie Smith, Interim Principal Haines City High School (Plan). There was no team meeting with Petitioner or with the team as a whole to discuss the outcome of the survey, the compilation of the results, or to jointly draft the Plan. Petitioner was not aware of, nor did he have knowledge of, the Plan prior to the August 14, 1997, meeting with Superintendent Reynolds. The Plan was presented to Petitioner at the August 14, 1997, meeting with Superintendent Reynolds, Area Superintendent Baldwin, William Strouse, and Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Denny Dunn. Petitioner was advised at this meeting that his Interim Principal Program would be extended a year. The Plan dated August 1997, provides as follows: CLUSTER CONSTANCY OF PURPOSE COMPETENCIES COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION is a pledge to develop and act in accordance with the shared vision, mission and values of the school. The principal needs to exhibit COMMITMENT TO VISION AND MISSION in which he: *personally holds a set of values which are in harmony with the vision and mission of the school; e.g., respect and caring for each individual, belief that everyone can succeed, etc. *is purposeful about linking the school's mission to expected behavior *identifies, models and reinforces behavior which is congruent with the mission and goals of the schools CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION is caring about the impressions created by self, the students, the faculty, the staff, and parents, and how these are communicated both inside and outside the school. The principal needs to demonstrate a greater CONCERN FOR THE SCHOOL'S REPUTATION in which he: *Maintains a safe, orderly and clean school and expects everyone to assume their responsibility for doing so *builds a school culture that provides the best possible teaching/learning environment *controls the flow of negative information. ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY is an awareness of the effects of one's behavior and decisions on all stakeholders both inside and outside the organization. The principal needs to demonstrate ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY by documenting that he: *considers the overall consequences to the school's culture before initiating changes *keeps individuals, both inside and outside the school, informed when data are relevant to them *considers the position, feelings and/or perspectives of other parts of the organization when planning, deciding and organizing *develops and maintains a school climate conductive to learning *is open to discussion and change *builds coalitions and seeks, secures and recognizes allies CLUSTER: PROACTIVE ORIENTATION COMPETENCIES PROACTIVE ORIENTATION PROACTIVE ORIENTATION is the inclination and readiness to initiate activity and take responsibility for leading and enabling others to improve the circumstances being faced or anticipated. The principal must demonstrate a more PROACTIVE ORIENTATION in which he: *provides support for teachers, staff and parents as they take initiative for school improvement CLUSTER: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT COMPETENCIES ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION is having to do things better than before by setting goals that encourage self and others to reach higher standards. The principal give more attention to ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION in which he: *shows appreciation for individual and group efforts and accomplishments *identifies discrepancies between goals and the current status in order to stimulate achievement *uses criteria for effective schools to assess the status of the school as one basis for school improvement. DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION is holding high and positive expectations for the growth and development of all stakeholders through modeling self-development coaching and providing learning opportunities. A principal needs to enhance his DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION in which he: *builds a school, community and culture that supports learning and growth for everyone including self *participates in professional developmental activities as a learner. CLUSTER: COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS SELF PRESENTATION IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS is influencing and having an effect upon the school stakeholders by a variety of means...e.g., persuasive arguments, setting an example or using expertise. The principal needs to demonstrate IMPACT/PERSUASIVENESS in which he: *persists until ideas, beliefs and goals are clear to all stakeholders *uses personal presence to influence others, maintains visibility and accessibility. SELF PRESENTATION is the ability to clearly present one's ideas to others in an open, informative and non-evaluative manner The principal must enhance his skills of SELF PRESENTATION in which he: *checks to see that messages are received, and persist until ideas, beliefs and goals seem to be understood *models effective interpersonal communication skills *uses effective listening skills before responding to questions by others. CLUSTER: FACILITATION COMPETENCIES MANAGING INTERACTION TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY MANAGING INTERACTION is getting others to work together effectively though the use of group process and facilitator skills. A principal needs to improve his skills of MANAGING INTERACTION when in which he: *facilitates team and group membership *moderates group discussions and encourages consensus *facilitates interpersonal and intergroup communication *creates a non judgmental atmosphere in order to stimulate open communication personally *promotes collegial behavior. TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY is the ability to adapt one's interaction and behavior to meet the situation. The principal needs to develop skills of TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY in which he: *adopts various roles of listener, facilitator, and confronter as needed *understands how own behavior affects others and makes appropriate adjustments. INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY is the ability to discover, understand, verbalize accurately and respond empathetically to the perspectives, thoughts, ideas and feelings of others. The principal must demonstrate greater INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY in which he: *encourages others to describe their perceptions, thoughts, feelings and perspectives *listens attentively and accurately describe others' behavior, expressed ideas, feelings, and perspectives CLUSTER: CRITICAL THINKING COMPETENCIES INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS CONCEPT FORMATION CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS is the gathering and analysis of data from multiple sources before arriving at an understanding of an event or problem. The principal needs to display an enhanced competence in INFORMATION SEARCH AND ANALYSIS in which he: *creates and manages a systemic informational gathering process among the various stakeholders of the school community *keeps up-to-date, striving to gather new information from research and other sources which can then be used by the school CONCEPT FORMATION is the ability to see patterns and relationships and form concepts, hypotheses and ideas from the information. The principal must evidence CONCEPT FORMATION when he: *processes data logically and intuitively to discover and/or create meaning *presses self and others to define and understand issues so that problem solving techniques can be applied *practices reflective thinking CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY is the ability to use alternative or multiple concepts or perspectives when solving a problem or making a decision. The principal must demonstrate CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY in which he: *views the situation being faced and the events leading up to it from multiple perspectives *values divergent thinking and considers conflicting or differing views in the process of identifying options for actions *appreciates different perspectives, and ensures that alternative courses of action and their consequences are considered before decisions are made *makes decisions based upon an analysis of options *demonstrates contingency planning skills. CLUSTER: DECISION-MAKING COMPETENCIES DECISIVENESS DECISIVENESS is the readiness and confidence to make or share decisions in a timely manner, using appropriate levels of involvement so that actions may be taken and commitments made by self and others. The principal needs to exhibit greater DECISIVENESS in which he: *recognizes the importance of sharing decisions and decision-making with stakeholders as integral part of organizational learning and development *recognizes that decisions are made at several levels by different people *faces personnel problems as they occur, provides feedback on performance, and makes difficult personnel decisions when necessary *acts quickly to stop possible breaches of safety and/or interruption in operations in discipline situations *decides to let others decide. CLUSTER: MANAGERIAL COMPETENCIES ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY DELEGATION MANAGEMENT CONTROL ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY is the "know-how" (knowledge and skill) to design, plan and organize activities to achieve goals. The principal must improve his ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY in which he: *develops action plans for goal achievement in collaboration with the school improvement team *recruits teachers whose goals align with the mission and goals of the school community DELEGATION is entrusting of jobs to be done, beyond routine assignments, to others, giving them authority and responsibility for accomplishment. The principal must improve his DELEGATION COMPETENCE in which he: *assesses the expertise of self and others and, whenever possible considers the developmental needs and aspirations of others in relation to the jobs and tasks to be assigned *seeks outside help and assistance for tasks or jobs for which time and talents are not available within the school *gains understanding and acceptance for delegated tasks *specifies responsibility and authority for delegated tasks MANAGEMENT CONTROL is the establishment of systematic processes to receive and provide feedback about the progress of work being done. The principal must improve his skills of MANAGEMENT CONTROL in which he: *walks around campus purposefully to check the status of events *holds frequent conferences with staff about student progress *asks for feedback to see how well self is doing *reconsiders, at least annually, the shared vision of the school, its mission and the stated goals *schedules follow-up for all delegated and assigned activities. RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN FOR THE NEEDS RELATED TO THE FLORIDA PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SUPPORT TEAM Lonnie Smith, Interim Principal, Haines City Senior High, will implement the following activities as a way to document successful achievement of the Florida Principal Competency criteria for certification as a School Principal: Develop and maintain a portfolio which contains artifacts related to each of the indicators (as appropriate) for the Florida Principal Competencies as identified by the support team in July of 1997. Provide written behavioral examples for specific competency indicators for which artifact documentation is inappropriate. Provide oral behavioral examples in an interview setting to his supervisor related to specific competency indicators as identified in the summary of developmental needs. Read the Polk County School Board Policy Book and consult with his supervisor and/or other appropriate district level resource people when specific policy questions arise. Participate in Leadership Academy training activities as follows: Facilitative Leadership Leadership Self-Assessment Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People Schedule, plan, and facilitate at least four (4) meetings of the Interim Principal Support Team to provide status reports concerning the developmental needs as identified and action plan accomplishments. One meeting should be scheduled in each of the following months: October, 1997; January, 1998; March, 1998; June 1998. Meet all expectations/processes as outlined in the performance appraisal procedures for school-based administrators. Participate in other training as might be suggested by the Assistant Area Superintendent and where time and content are appropriate. Secure and administer the "School Climate Quality Survey" from Anchin Center, USF (813- 974-5959). Develop an action plan to address any areas of need as identified by the survey results. Participate in additional shadowing experiences with each peer principal at least twice during the 1997-1998 school year. Limit military leave time to a minimum so as to concentrate on successful demonstration of all duties comprehensive of the principalship. Despite several objections to the Plan, including the requirement to reduce his military obligation, Petitioner accepted the Plan and proceeded to work on the 11-point recommended action set out in the Plan. Petitioner did not at this time, or at any previous time, advise the Team that he was of the opinion that he had successfully completed the Program. In accordance with the recommended action set out in the Plan Petitioner: developed and maintained a portfolio; provided written behavioral examples for specific competency indicators for which artifact documentation is inappropriate; provided his Team and supervisor with oral behavioral examples; read the Polk County School Board Policy Book and consulted with his supervisor or other appropriate district level resource personnel when specific policy questions would arise; participated in the leadership academy training activities and completed the three courses outlined in the recommended action set out in the Plan; d scheduled, planned, and facilitated at least three meetings of the Interim Principal Support Team. A fourth meeting of the Interim Principal Support was scheduled and planned by Petitioner but did not occur due to the Program being terminated prematurely in March 1998; participated in other training that was suggested by Area Superintendent Carolyn Baldwin, went to training titled Building a Team, and also went to training provided by the Board and Ms. Baldwin in particular. secured and administered the "School Climate Quality Survey" and, pursued furthering shadowing with the two peer principals. On January 26, 1998, the Team met to review Petitioner's progress, The Team member expressed concern regarding Petitioner's leadership in the instructional/academic programs at Haines City High School, and the need for an academic plan for the school was discussed. On March 5, 1998, the Team met to review Petitioner's progress on the Plan and the Program. The Team's concern regarding the school's academic plan was again discussed. Petitioner was requested to prepare a written description of a plan for improving the school's academic and instructional performance. Petitioner subsequently submitted such a plan to the Team members. Each of the Team members found shortcomings in Petitioner's academic plan. Petitioner's plan: (a) did not address what Petitioner had been asked to address by the Team; (b) lacked substance; (c) lacked quality; and (c) was difficult to understand. On March 16, 1998, the Team met without Petitioner to discuss his progress with the Plan and Program. Petitioner was not present at this meeting due some minor surgery. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to postpone the meeting but decided to let the Team meet without him. However, Petitioner had submitted material to the Team regarding the Plan. After reviewing the material submitted by Petitioner (which apparently included Petitioner's portfolio), the Team, individually and collectively, concluded that Petitioner had not successfully completed the Program in that he had failed to demonstrate satisfactory performance of the 19 Florida Principal Competencies. At this meeting the Team reached a consensus that the Team could not recommend Petitioner for certification as a principal. A memorandum was prepared advising Superintendent Reynolds that the Team was recommending that Petitioner should not receive certification as a principal. Additionally, the memorandum advised Superintendent Reynolds that although Petitioner had made some improvements there had not been a demonstration of performance whereby the Team could recommend School Principal Certification for Petitioner. The Team also agreed at the March 16, 1998, meeting that since Petitioner's evaluation was an integral part of the certification program that Ms. Baldwin, as Petitioner's supervisor, would complete Petitioner's evaluation. On March 17, 1998, Ms. Baldwin prepared Petitioner's Principal Performance Summary Assessment and rated Petitioner "Ineffective" in the following Clusters of Florida Principal Competencies: Proactive Orientation with the following comments: has been proactive in relationship to the physical facility and grounds needs of Haines City High School. lacks proactive orientation in relationship to school's academic performance. discipline issues often become complaint status. Parents express concern about the accessibility of the principal for problem resolution and frequently report referral to the staff persons when the [sic] specifically request to speak with the school principal. Some parents say they do not know who the principal is. lack of participation in decision making regarding emergency plans for school double session (December 1997). decisiveness in relation to safety issues questionable, i.e. bomb threat incident and delay of school evacuation as documented by investigation of Mr. Fred Murphy, Director of Disaster Preparedness; also lack of a clear plan even after numerous bomb threats (which staff members were to search which parts of the building) staff report hesitancy in interaction in planning meetings (guidance staff, specifically) difficulty in simple decision making and follow through (i.e., FBLA supplements, principal awarded 2 available supplements at 100% and 2 more at 33 1/3% with conflicting paperwork on file at the county level.) complaints re: cheerleaders coaching and advertisement of supplemental positions as per collective bargaining agreement affecting basic program start up timeliness and county requirements Sensitivity does not seem to have recognition of consequences of his actions in the larger organization (i.e., letting teachers go home during duty day perceived as abdication of responsibility) development of team approach weak considering 2 years to accomplish (relationships with other administrators disjointed and awkward) tends to isolate himself and participate in peripheral ways only (observed in East Area principal's meetings as well as reported by school staff) lack of networking with peer principal's [sic]; evidences reluctance to use peer principals as resources Analysis weakness in interpreting school's academic data. Uses large minority population and high mobility rate as reasons for school underachievement no observation in concept through conversation or practice of elements of concept formation or conceptual flexibility at a proficient level Leadership Managing interaction weak in group problem solving high number of parent complaints about interaction with school personnel (principal and others) as compared to other area high schools. Four times the number of complaints requiring intervention compared to the next highest number from another high school (48:12 ratio). One other area high school has only 3 complaint calls Work Standards have not observed level of developmental orientation expected of a principal performing effectively Written Communication some ambiguity in written communication, some ideas not clearly communicated (i.e., materials provided to team for interim principal program) Sharon Knowles concluded that Petitioner had failed to adequately perform in the competency of proactive orientation which includes decision-making, improving the school, and decisiveness. Knowles cited specific examples such as Petitioner's decision to delay evacuating the school upon being advised of a bomb threat and his decision to attend a scholarship competition at another school during the time that a law enforcement officer had been killed in the community and his school was in a lock-down. To Knowles this indicated a lack of decisiveness. Also, Knowles concluded that Petitioner's failure to move the Program along in the beginning indicated a lack of responsibility on the part of Petitioner. David Lewis concluded that Petitioner had failed to adequately perform in the competency of proactive orientation. Lewis cited specific examples such as Petitioner's delay in responding to a bomb threat and his lack of involvement in taking the leadership role in diffusing the situation. Lewis cited Petitioner's lack of leadership in responding to a tornado disaster. Lewis cited Petitioner's failure to return to his school during a lock-down of the school after the shooting death of a law enforcement officer in the neighborhood. Lewis also concluded that Petitioner had failed to perform in the cluster of Critical Thinking (Information Search and Analysis, Concept Formation, and Conceptual Flexibility). As a specific example, Lewis cited Petitioner's inability to properly prepare and present an academic and instructional plan for Haines City High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Petitioner did not successfully complete the necessary requirements for the principal certification under the Interim Principal Program and, is further recommended that Petitioner be denied principal certification under that program. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Grizzard, II, Esquire Post Office Box 992 115 Trader's Alley Lakeland, Florida 33802-0992 Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell and Dunlap LLP Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Mr. Glenn Reynolds Superintendent of Schools Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-0391 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
