The Issue The issue is whether respondent should be dismissed from his position as a physical education teacher aide for the reasons cited in petitioner's letter of March 12, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Wilson McKenzie, Jr., was employed as a physical education teacher aide at St. Petersburg Challenge (SPC) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The school is a part of the public school system operated by petitioner, School Board of Pinellas County (Board). Respondent's employment with the Board began on August 16, 1990, when he was assigned as a full time physical education teacher aide at Melrose Elementary School (MES). In early September McKenzie was reassigned to work at MES during the morning hours only and then during the afternoon hours at SPC, a drop-out prevention school for disadvantaged fourth and fifth graders. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the Pinellas Educational Support Personnel Association and the Board, respondent served in a probationary status during his first six months of employment. Under the same agreement, he was continued in that status for an additional ninety days after his first evaluation. According to Article 9, Section 1 of the agreement, a probationary employee may be terminated "for any reason", and the Board's termination letter of March 12, 1991, relied upon that provision of the agreement as its authority for terminating McKenzie. Pending the outcome of this proceeding, McKenzie has remained in a suspended without pay status since March 28, 1991. The Board's Reasons for Termination Respondent's performance at MES during the morning hours was apparently satisfactory since petitioner, in its charging letter of March 12, 1991, chose not to rely upon any performance deficiencies at MES as a basis for termination. 1/ As the first ground for terminating respondent, petitioner alleged that respondent was deficient in the "area of relationships with students". To support this charge, petitioner presented the testimony of ten students, all fifth graders at SPC during school year 1990-91 and who came in contact with respondent. While some of the students gave conflicting versions of what transpired, and thus their complaints were questionable, it is found that, contrary to school policy and orders from his supervising teacher, respondent yelled at and argued with students during physical education class in an effort to enforce class discipline. In addition, he placed his hand on students' shoulders or backs and would pinch them despite their requests that he not do so, and twice called students insulting names (e.g., bitch) in the presence of other students. It was further established that on several occasions respondent went to the home of a student to discuss school problems instead of inviting the parent to come to the school. He also had difficulty in maintaining classroom discipline. Several of the students testified that respondent made them uncomfortable by "staring" at them during class or lunch period. Finally, respondent was observed by several students looking up the dress of a female student who sat on the floor with her legs spread apart. In fairness to respondent, however, it should be noted that in some instances the students were acting in an unruly fashion or were violating cafeteria rules by talking loudly and "trading" food, thus prompting respondent to yell at them. Even so, it is fair to say that respondent had numerous difficulties in his relationships with students and most of the students who testified disliked respondent and appeared to be afraid of him. In addition to the above ground, petitioner has cited respondent's failure to follow "directives from superiors" as a second reason for terminating his employment. This charge stems primarily from respondent's sponsorship of a dance program for students that he conducted after school hours. Respondent's group was known as the Very Important Kids Association and was made up of young, disadvantaged children from the south side of St. Petersburg. Respondent was told early on by various superiors, including the SPC principal, assistant principal and physical education teacher, that group activities should not be arranged during school hours, the group should not meet on school property and respondent should refrain from asking students to join his group during school hours. Despite having at least three formal conferences with SPC administrators concerning this matter, and receiving written memoranda with specific instructions, respondent continued to violate these instructions by asking students during school hours to join his group. By doing so, respondent failed to follow "directives from superiors" as alleged in the charging document. Respondent's Case Respondent, who is 27 years old, maintained at hearing that he was "set up" on these charges by unnamed individuals and that he gave his best effort at doing a good job. McKenzie pointed out that he had no problems at MES and that all problems were encountered at SPC. He stated he is sincerely interested in helping underprivileged children and offered a number of letters from third parties to corroborate this contention. Through cross-examination, respondent established that several complaints offered by the testifying students were caused by their own misbehavior and respondent's subsequent efforts to discipline them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of the allegations in the charging document and that he be terminated from his position as a teacher aide. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 this 12th day of July, 1991.
Findings Of Fact James D. Alford, III, was initially employed by the Board of Education in the Public Schools of Duval County, Florida during January of 1973. Respondent holds teacher's certificate no. 333009, graduate, rank 3 and is a graduate of Tuskegee Institute where he received a B.S. Degree in Industrial Arts. For approximately two and one-half years subsequent to January, 1973, he was assigned to southside Junior High School as an Industrial Arts Special Education Teacher in a pilot program. It appears that there is no difference in the qualification required for teachers of industrial arts in special education programs as opposed to other industrial arts teachers that are certified in industrial arts. In addition to his employment with the Duval County School Board, Respondent served in a student teacher training program for nine weeks in Montgomery, Alabama. Respondent, during his assigned duties for the Duval County School Board, taught a special education industrial arts class consisting of seventh, eighth and ninth grade students. He trained students how to safely use tools and to perform projects requiring the use of industrial arts tools. He assigned students projects based on their manipulative skills. He noted that "special ed" students had to be trained to use even the simplest tools such as hand saws. Respondent testified that discipline was a major problem in teaching "special ed" students and that for the first and/or minor offense, he attempted to discipline students by verbal commands and that when that failed he sent students to the Dean's Office. He denied ever using physical force to punish students for unruly conduct. His testimony is that his only physical contact with students was to restrain them from physical acts and it suffices to say that he denied all of the allegations filed by the Council in its petition to revoke his teaching certificate. Respondent was aware of the Board's policy respecting discipline and testified that he never administered corporal punishment to students. Following altercations with two students during late 1974, Respondent was offered transfers on at least two occasions which he declined because he "had recently received approximately $5,000.00 of new shop equipment" and further that he wanted to remain at Southside for a sufficient period in order to administer in a smooth and efficient manner the special ed industrial arts program at Southside. The first significant incident involving the Respondent occurred during December of 1974 during an altercation with one of his students i.e., Gary Roary. According to Respondent, Roary initially hit him whereupon he retaliated by striking him back. Roary then left the room, picked up a two by four and returned to the classroom where Roary attempted to hit Respondent. Respondent, in an effort to snatch the two by four from Roary, shoved him causing him to fall on a saw. Roary sustained an injury which required three sutures at the emergency room at a local hospital. Respondent states that he did not know that Roary had injured himself until he was later called to the office where he was told to meet with Mr. Buford Galloway. The Principal, J. R. McDaniel, investigated the incident involving Gary Roary and concluded that Respondent was "rather rough with Gary". See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. Respondent testified that the incident occurred during a demonstration of a "boomerang" that he had constructed to motivate students to make one. He first threw the boomerang and then a student threw it. When the student threw the boomerang, it struck a teacher's car which resulted in a scratch. One of the students relayed this information to the teacher involved, Ms. Williams, whose car was parked near the shop area. A brief uproar resulted when the boomerang struck Ms. William's car and Respondent grabbed Willie Critton, another student by the front of his shirt. Roary yelled for Critton to hit Respondent and evidence revealed that Respondent retorted by saying "hit me, hit me," when Roary said "hit him". Respondent released Critton and grabbed Roary and this brought about the above incident in which Roary sustained the cut. Respondent admits to pushing Roary and striking him on the right shoulder stating that this was done in self- defense. He acknowledged that it was probably a mistake for him to hit Roary. Following this incident, Respondent was transferred to another school for the remainder of the school term. Marilyn Bagby, a program coordinator for mentally retarded for the Duval County School Board testified that she has known Respondent since 1972, and that during a visit to one of his classes, she saw a student roaming the hallway in front of his class. She testified generally that she was able to determine that students had been left out in the hall for periods up to approximately three weeks. However Mrs. Bagby was not specific in her testimony respecting these incidents and for these reasons, little weight can be attached to her testimony. Lowell T. Hudson, Industrial Arts Superintendent for the Duval County School Board, testified that the Respondent's class was properly equipped and that during his visits to Respondent's class, he noticed discipline problems. Mr. Hudson was involved in one conference concerning the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent and during a subsequent incident, Respondent was transferred. Joseph R. McDaniels, the Prinicpal at Southside High for approximately four years and an employee for approximately 19 years testified respecting approximately five conferences concerning Respondent and his disciplinary techniques. On three of these conferences, he wrote memos respecting the details of such conferences. He explained the City wide disciplinary policy to Respondent and cautioned him against using corporal punishment to discipline students. He recalled that two conferences occurred during May of 1974 and a third conference occurred during December of 1974. Ms. Eleanor Williams, the instructor whose car was struck by the boomerang which was thrown by one of Respondent's students, testified that Respondent assisted her on one occasion in a dispute with a student who was fighting another student. Respondent requested that Ms. Williams go to his office to obtain his stick which she refused and thereafter he asked the students to go get his stick. She testified that one student who was involved in the altercation had a paring knife. Respondent, in an effort to break up the students, swung at one student and missed striking a refrigerator and a bread box resulting in a dent in the refrigerator of approximately eight inches. Respondent, according to Ms. Williams, never requested that the students stop fighting. Instead Respondent kicked one of the students, Tim Walden, and Don Jones, the other student who was involved was struck in his face. At that time, several instructors were summoned who restrained Respondent from further hitting the students. 1/ Willie J. Critton, a 16 year old eleventh grade student attended shop classes with Respondent during his eighth grade school year. He testified that on numerous occasions, Respondent bent his fingers back and twisted his fingers. He further testified that it was common practice for Respondent to expel students from his class room and force them to stand outside in the hallway. Gary Roary was called and testified substantially as other witnesses who gave testimony on the boomerang incident during December of 1974. Specifically, he testified that Respondent hit Willie Critton and thereafter grabbed him. During the above incident, he was shook by Respondent and struck in the mouth. When he broke away from Respondent, he left the classroom, obtained a stick and entered the room. Upon his return, he swung at Respondent and fell when Respondent shoved him and his head struck a saw. This resulted in the cut referred to above which required three stitches. Betty Allison, a qualified expert in mental retardation, testified that while discipline is a problem in teaching EMR students (Educable Mentally Retarded), she objected to the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent calling them inappropriate in EMR situations. She testified that to be effective, EMR instructors must devise well organized lesson plans and that classroom instruction must be motivating in order to secure and retain the students' attention. Other witnesses testified that EMR students cause more discipline problems than others and generally testified that Respondent was effective as most instructors in teaching EMR students. Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, 1975, empowers the Department of Education to suspend or revoke a valid Florida Teaching Certificate held by an individual who is committing or has committed certain acts or omissions which justify revocation or suspension on grounds enumerated in the statute. One of the grounds as provided in the statute exist when the teacher, upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. Here the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's teacher's certificate based on the fact that he has allegedly engaged in numerous offensive activities, which has seriously impaired and reduced his effectiveness as an employee. After careful consideration of all the evidence adduced herein, the testimony of witnesses and the arguments of counsel, I conclude that the disciplinary measures used by the Respondent departed from the county's established procedure for disciplining students and despite repeated warnings that he refrain from corporally punishing students, he continued to do so. His conduct in the Gary Roary and Willie J. Critton incident on December 3, 1974, is exemplary of his disciplinary methods. Based thereon and the entire record herein, I find that Respondent's usefulness as a teacher-employee has been reduced within the meaning of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing finding of facts and conclusions, I hereby RECOMMEND: 1. That the Respondent's teaching certificate be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Petitioner Rayburn should have been re-nominated and reappointed by Respondent as a teacher aide.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Doris Faye Rayburn was employed by the School Board of Leon County, Florida from 1973 to 1977: 1973-74 teacher aide, Nims Middle School; 1974-75 teacher aide, Nims Middle School; 1975-76 secretary/bookkeeper, Nims Middle School, later transferred during the school year to a teacher aide position at Nims Middle School; 1976-77 teacher aide, Nims Middle School. She was not reappointed for the 1977-78 term and thereupon filed a grievance procedure and then a petition for this administrative hearing. Petitioner's contract of employment as a teacher aide each year was for 180 days and included the right to participate in the State Personnel Retirement System to accumulate sick leave, and participate in the payroll deduction plan for 12 months insurance coverage. Thirty-six of the 165 teacher aides employed by the School Board in 1976-77 were not reemployed including Petitioner. The procedure for employment of teacher aides is by a recommendation from the Principal to the School superintendent, a nomination by the Superintendent and subsequent approval by the School Board. This procedure takes place each year for each teacher aide. Petitioner was not promised reemployment and was not reemployed. The principal testified that his decision not to recommend Petitioner for reemployment was not based alone on her comments to the Superintendent's wife or for things she had said concerning the operation of the school, although he was aware of her activities. There were some complaints about Petitioner "over- stepping" her job and posing as a counselor. After the expiration of Petitioner's last contract two assistant principals urged the Principal not to recommend Petitioner for future employment. Petitioner satisfied at least two guidance counselors with whom she worked. She is active and interested in school activities. Petitioner feels that she was not reappointed because of things she said concerning the school and its policies. She wanted to be reappointed and had so planned. Petitioner contends: Petitioner was denied employment as a result of exercising her first amendment right of freedom of speech. Mrs. Rayburn voiced her general concerns about the quality of education provided by the school system. These comments were within her right as a public employee, parent and citizen to publicly comment on events of community interests and her speech did not disrupt the efficiency of providing educational services. Section 231.141, Florida Statutes, gave Mrs. Rayburn an objective expectation in her employment as a teacher aide, protected by the fourteenth amendment. That she had "de facto" tenure and should have been reemployed. Respondent contends: Petitioner was a "non-instructional employee" and not entitled to tenure under the statutes. The fact that Mrs. Rayburn had been appointed to four previous years and the fact that 78 percent of the 1976-77 teacher aides were reemployed did not give Petitioner a constitutionally protected interest in continuing employment. That the incident of the comments Petitioner made regarding the school policy to the School Superintendent's wife was not constitutionally protected speech and that there is no showing that the Superintendent's decision not to again nominate her for employment as a teacher aide was related in any way to any speech or communication by Petitioner.
Recommendation Dismiss the petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joyce Davis, Esquire Steven Seliger, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 822 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 C. Graham Carothers, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Dodson, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was the victim of an unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of her religion or age and whether the Petitioner was the subject of unlawful retaliation. If that should be the case, then the remaining issue concerns the type and amount of lost wages and other benefits as a remedy.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a substitute teacher during most of 1990 with the Board and, as pertinent hereto, frequently substituted at Cordova. On or about November 6, 1990, she filed a complaint with the Commission charging discrimination against the Board and Cordova in hiring on the basis of religion and age. The Petitioner is of the Jewish faith and at the time of filing the complaint, was over the age of 40 years. The matter was investigated by the Commission which concluded that there had been no violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. A notice of determination of no cause was issued by the Commission on November 8, 1991, and a notice of redetermination of no cause was issued on or about January 27, 1992. On approximately June 26, 1992, the Commission transferred the Petitioner's Petition for Relief to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. In that Petition, the Petitioner alleges discrimination on the basis of age, religion, and retaliation. The most recent date of discrimination alleged in that Petition is August, 1990. The Petitioner alleges that she was not hired as a teacher at Cordova because of reasons related to her Jewish faith and her age of over 40 years. The only act of "retaliation" alleged in the Petition related to Mr. Thomas not having selected her for a full-time position "in retaliation for the complaints expressed by the parents regarding the termination of my appointment." The "appointment", according to the Petitioner in the Petition, concerned the Petitioner being hired on a temporary basis to teach a kindergarten class with that appointment to be terminated when another teacher was transferred to the staff at Cordova. No testimony was presented at hearing by the Petitioner or any witness called on her behalf concerning any of the allegations set forth in the original complaint of discrimination filed with the Commission or contained in the Petition transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The first witness called by the Petitioner was Mrs. Genie Nobles, a secretary at Cordova. Mrs. Nobles testified that at Cordova, when regular teachers need substitutes because of anticipated absences, those teachers generally contact the substitutes themselves and communicate with them themselves regarding the need for the substitute, as well as other necessary information concerning the requirements for the substitute teaching duties. On some occasions, teachers will ask administrative staff in the school office, whether it be Mrs. Nobles or another staff member, to call a specific person to substitute for that teacher. On a minority of occasions, the teachers may ask someone in the office to call a substitute without requesting a specific person as a substitute. On those occasions, the person making the calls will generally refer to an approved substitute teacher list and simply call someone on the list. Mrs. Nobles was aware that the Petitioner had filed a complaint of discrimination when a question was raised by a teacher during a staff meeting; and Mr. Thomas, on being asked whether such a complaint had been filed, confirmed that it had. Mr. Thomas made no editorial comment, however, regarding the nature or merits of the complaint nor expressed any opinion or admonition either for or against the hiring of the Petitioner as a substitute teacher. Mrs. Nobles could not recall calling the Petitioner as a substitute teacher at any period of time after the filing of the complaint in November, 1990. Mrs. Nobles also testified that Mr. Thomas did not ever direct request, intimate, infer, or advise her or any other administrative staff or teacher that the Petitioner should not be called as a substitute teacher either before or after the complaint of discrimination was filed with the Commission. Mrs. Nobles was aware that one or more regular teachers at Cordova had expressed reservations about the Petitioner's reliability as a substitute relative to her meeting the required schedule for substitute teaching. Ms. Marie Nelson is the librarian at Cordova. She acknowledged that a misunderstanding had occurred regarding scheduling of the Petitioner as a substitute teacher involving her schedule and that of another teacher, Ms. Holman. The Petitioner had made a commitment to Ms. Holman to substitute on specific days; however, Ms. Nelson needed the Petitioner for a longer period of time and requested Ms. Holman to release the Petitioner from her obligation to Ms. Holman so that the Petitioner could substitute for Ms. Nelson. Ms. Nelson recalls that Ms. Holman agreed to this. Due to some misunderstanding, however, Ms. Holman concluded at some point in time that the Petitioner had not fulfilled her commitment to her and became unhappy with the Petitioner as a substitute because she had not substituted as previously committed, at least in the view of Ms. Holman. Ms. Nelson testified that Mr. Thomas had never instructed her not to call the Petitioner as a substitute. She established that Mr. Thomas had never directed, inferred, intimated, advised, or otherwise communicated any intention that she should not call the Petitioner as a substitute, even after the filing of the complaint with the Commission in November, 1990. Ms. Nelson had not called the Petitioner after the filing of the complaint because, for a period of time, funds were not available for substitutes. After that period when funds were not available had elapsed, Ms. Nelson's daughter had become qualified to be a substitute teacher and was thereafter called by Ms. Nelson when the need for a substitute arose. Ms. Judy Meyer is a teacher at Cordova who testified on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. Meyer testified that during the summer of 1992, she had asked the Petitioner if she would be available to teach on a substitute basis for a gifted class during that summer. Ms. Meyer later advised the Petitioner that she would not call her to substitute after all because she was seeking a teacher who was certified in gifted teaching, believing at that point that such certification was required. Ms. Meyer subsequently learned that gifted certification was not required for such a substitute teacher but, in the meantime, had already scheduled another person to be a substitute teacher. That person was not certified in certified teaching either since, in the meantime, Ms. Meyer had learned that such certification was not required. Ms. Meyer had asked Mr. Thomas, after initially inquiring as to the petitioner's availability to teach the gifted class, as to whether he had any objections to her calling the Petitioner as a substitute. Mr. Thomas told her that he would leave that decision up to her. Mr. Thomas never directed, instructed, inferred, advised or otherwise showed intent to or otherwise tried to influence Ms. Meyer against calling the Petitioner as a substitute teacher. Ms. Meyer did testify that she felt somewhat uncomfortable about calling the Petitioner once she knew that she had filed the complaint of discrimination. Ms. Meyer made a personal decision not to call the Petitioner to substitute during the summer session on the occasion described above. It is not shown that that decision was influenced in any way by Mr. Thomas or other supervisory personnel. The Petitioner called no other witnesses other than the three witnesses referenced in the above Findings of Fact. No testimony was elicited by the Petitioner from these witnesses in her case-in-chief concerning any discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion or age. Mr. Charles Thomas testified on behalf of the Respondent. He was the Principal at Cordova during times material to the subject complaint and is now Principal at Pleasant Grove Elementary School in Escambia County. Sometime after the Petitioner filed the complaint in November, 1990, a teacher inquired of him at a staff meeting concerning a rumor she had reportedly heard that such a complaint had been filed. Mr. Thomas did not elicit that inquiry and did not previously disclose to any staff members the fact of the existence and filing of the complaint. Upon being questioned directly by that teacher, however, he did truthfully acknowledge that a complaint had been filed; but he made no further comment regarding the complaint as to its merits, accuracy, or any other editorial comment concerning it. Mr. Thomas, as did the teachers and other staff members who testified in the Petitioner's case-in-chief, testified and established that he had never instructed, directed, inferred, intimated, admonished, or advised any teacher or staff member against calling the Petitioner as a substitute teacher. Mr. Thomas was aware that some members of the staff, specifically Ms. Holman and Ms. Vinson, were unhappy with the Petitioner concerning her reliability and availability as a substitute when scheduled. He understood that Ms. Holman's unhappiness stemmed from an incident involving the Petitioner committing to Ms. Holman for a period of time as a substitute and thereafter agreeing instead to substitute for Ms. Nelson, the instance referenced in the above Findings of Fact. He was unaware of the basis for Ms. Vinson's concern about the Petitioner's reliability as a substitute teacher. He simply could not recall the details of the reasons she had reservations concerning the Petitioner's substituting. The Respondent also called the Petitioner as a witness. The Petitioner testified that prior to filing the complaint of discrimination in November, 1990, she had substituted on several occasions at Cordova and that after filing the complaint, she was not called again to serve as a substitute. She acknowledged the truth of the statement in her deposition of August 3, 1993; that after the filing of the complaint, approximately one year prior to that deposition, Ms. Hall, a teacher at Cordova, had inquired as to her availability to substitute and the Petitioner had turned down the offer because she was unavailable, since she was performing a job concerning civil service testing at the time Ms. Hall required her services. The Petitioner acknowledged that a dispute had occurred with Ms. Holman concerning her availability and that Ms. Holman was upset because she had a perception that the Petitioner had not fulfilled her commitment. She also acknowledged a scheduling commitment to another teacher, Ms. Hall, and that she had changed her schedule and agreed instead to substitute for Ms. Nelson rather than Ms. Hall. The Petitioner testified that Ms. Hall was not upset but that Ms. Nobles was somewhat upset at having to make an additional call to locate another substitute for that occasion. The Petitioner also acknowledged that Ms. Vinson did have concerns regarding her availability as a substitute but simply believed that Ms. Vinson did not have a factual basis justifying that concern. Thus, by the Petitioner's own acknowledgment, Ms. Vinson did have a concern militating against her calling the Petitioner as a substitute teacher regardless of whether that concern was factually justified. The Petitioner acknowledged that subsequent to the filing of the complaint in November of 1990, she had been called on other occasions to be a substitute teacher at several other elementary schools operated by the Board. She was not aware of any perception in those other schools of any concern among faculty members regarding her availability or reliability as a substitute teacher. The Petitioner has established that she is a member of a protected class, being over the age of 40 years and being of a particular religious faith (Jewish). She has not established, however, that she was either not hired as a substitute teacher or teacher or that she was terminated and that available teaching or substitute teaching positions were instead given to non-Jewish teachers or to teachers under the age of 40 years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petitioner's Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 this 3rd day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3911 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The petitioner's proposed findings of fact are not all amenable to specific rulings since they are intertwined with legal argument and discussions and recitations of testimony. The paragraphs are not numbered and, therefore, to the extent the proposed findings of fact can be ruled upon, the paragraphs are referenced in this Appendix with a number which corresponds to the serial order of the paragraphs as they appear in the Petitioner's post-hearing pleading. Accepted. Accepted, to the extent that it establishes the rationale for the charge of discrimination and retaliation. Accepted. Rejected, as constituting legal argument and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected, as constituting legal argument and not a proposed finding of fact, and as being a misstatement of the law. Rejected, as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as constituting legal argument and not a proposed finding of fact. Accepted. Rejected, as constituting legal argument and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as argument concerning the weight and reliability of testimony and evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected, as argument concerning the weight and reliability of evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected, as constituting legal argument and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected, as constituting legal argument over the weight, quantity and quality of evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected, as constituting legal argument over the weight, quantity and quality of evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. Accepted, as to the first three sentences but not as to the purported material import of the remainder of the paragraph. Accepted, but not itself a materially dispositive finding of fact. Rejected, as constituting legal argument and argument concerning the quantity and quality of the evidence and as not supported by the preponderant weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact 1-24. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger Goldberg 675 Tambridge Circle Pensacola, Florida 32503 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire HAMMONS & WHITTAKER, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Dr. William Maloy Superintendent Escambia County School Board P.O. Box 1470 Pensacola, FL 32597-1470 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 097813, Rank II, Post Graduate, valid through June 30, 1987, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Art Education, Early Child Education, Reading and Junior College. During the 1976-1977 school year Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher at Astoria Park Elementary School in Leon County, Florida. Petitioner received a suggestion of Respondent's incompetence from school officials in Leon County, Florida, on October 14, 1977, and pursuant to the authority contained in Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, a professional inquiry into the allegation of Respondent's incompetence was conducted. On July 10, 1979, a report was submitted to the Executive Committee of Respondent which recommended that the Commissioner of Education find probable cause to believe that Respondent was guilty of acts constituting grounds for revocation or suspension of her teaching certificate. Pursuant to that recommendation, probable cause was found by the Commissioner on July 13, 1979. The filing of a petition seeking revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate was thereupon directed. On October 5, 1976, Respondent neglected to provide adequate or competent instructional plans for a substitute teacher, even though she had previously been advised by her principal that her absence from her classroom would be necessitated by a professional workshop; that a substitute would be required to conduct her classes; and that instructional plans for substitutes were essential to the accomplishment of the educational goals during her absence. On January 6, 1977, Respondent was warned in writing by her principal that, in accordance with school policy, adequate lesson plans for substitute teachers were necessary in order to insure a continued movement toward instructional goals for her students. Notwithstanding this warning, however, Respondent, during an absence necessitated by illness from January 31, 1977 through February 4, 1977, failed to leave adequate or comprehensible lesson plans and procedures for a substitute teacher. In fact, on various of the days during this time, no lesson plans whatever were left. On December 1, 1976, Respondent failed to deploy audio-visual equipment in a manner in which it could be heard by her class, failed to adequately explain the content of the material presented, and failed to use the equipment in a manner calculated to adequately instruct her students. During this same lesson, Respondent failed to utilize adequate techniques for the management of the behavior of her students, resulting in student behavior which interfered with instruction of her students. During the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent consistently maintained charts and visual teaching aids in her classroom in a disorganized and illogical manner, demonstrated poor enunciation and a lack of plural/singular distinction in the pronunciation of words, demonstrated incorrect letter formation and a lack of continuity of lessons from one day to the next. In addition, at various times during the 1976-1977 school year, in the process of grading and evaluating her class's test papers, homework and standardized test results, Respondent failed to accurately and adequately grade, evaluate and analyze her students' performance. As a result of Respondent's failure in this regard, her students were not properly advised of whether the tasks they had undertaken to learn were adequately understood, and were thus potentially permitted to retain inaccurate concepts of basic skills. Throughout academic year 1976-1977, Respondent consistently failed to utilize available instructional materials and equipment, such as student handouts, mimeograph materials and bulletin boards, in a manner calculated to accomplish the tasks for which those instructional aids were designed. In the use of such instructional aids, Respondent consistently misspelled words, used illegible manuscript, misused words and grammar, passed out sloppily prepared materials, and in general failed to utilize teaching techniques sufficient to assure that a particular task or subject was or could be understood by her students. In addition, Respondent consistently maintained her classroom in an unkempt and disorganized condition, despite reasonable requests and warnings from her principal. During this period Respondent constantly rearranged desks and seats in her classroom, causing confusion, disorientation, and general turbulence among her students. On December 3, 1976, Respondent publicly embarrassed one of her students by calling the student a "liar" when the student told Respondent that she had turned in a work assignment to Respondent. Respondent was apparently unable to locate the student's work at that time, but later found the paper on Respondent's desk. Despite this mistake, Respondent failed to apologize to the student or retract her criticism. At various times during the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent inflicted corporal punishment on her students by yanking them from their seats and/or shaking them, even though Respondent had repeatedly been instructed by her principal not to touch a student in any manner except as prescribed by school policy, and in the presence of other instructional or administrative personnel. Throughout academic year 1976-1977, until remedial action was taken by her principal, Respondent consistently failed to adequately and accurately explain her students' progress and goal achievement through evaluative methods and procedures made available to the students' parents. Further, Respondent consistently exhibited during this period incorrect and inappropriate grammar in class and in reports and other communications with her colleagues and students' parents. In addition, Respondent also displayed a cumulative lack of proper grammar and instructional skills, as well as a persistent lack of basic knowledge and inaccuracy in transmitting information in subject areas assigned to her class. On February 1, 1977, Respondent, in violation of school and district policy of which she had repeatedly been reminded, failed to report for school and failed to notify appropriate persons that she would be absent. Respondent was repeatedly counselled by her supervisors concerning her performance in an attempt to provide remedial assistance and advice. Respondent was issued repeated warnings that her persistence in the patterns and practices of conduct set forth above would result in disciplinary proceedings being instituted against her. As indicated earlier in this order, Respondent has asserted, as a defense to allegations of incompetency, that she suffered from medical and/or emotional or mental impairments during the 1976-1977 school year. However, the only medical testimony of record in this proceeding establishes that Respondent displays no gross psychiatric deviations, and is suffering from no diagnosable psychiatric disease.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Joseph E. Sedlak, is entitled to the restoration of any rights and privileges previously enjoyed, which have been removed as the result of the Respondent, University of North Florida's, notice of non-renewal of the Petitioner's contract beyond June 15, 1977, and whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to renewal of his contract with the Respondent beyond June 15, 1977.
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the com-plaint filed by the Petitioner, Joseph E. Sedlak, dated July 9, 1976, as amended March 29, 1977. The answer to the amended complaint was filed by the Respondent, University of North Florida, April 15, 1977. The Complainant/Petitioner is a duly appointed employee and faculty member of the University of North Florida, who initial employment commenced on December 16, 1974. On June 2, 1976, Dr. Robert M. Siudzinskl, Chairman of the Department of Special Education, College of Education, University of North Florida, conducted an annual evaluation of Use Petitioner, Dr. Joseph E. Sedlak, a member of the faculty of the Department of Special Education. During the course of the annual evaluation process, Dr. Siudzinski told Dr. Sedlak that he had made the decision to recommend that Dr. Sedlak's contract as an employee with the University of North Florida not be renewed after June of 1977. This statement was made to Dr. Sedlak following a discussion between Dr. Siudzinski and Dr. Sedlak concerning the annual performance evaluation of Dr. Sedlak, as accurately summarized in Petitioner's Exhibit #54, admitted into evidence. Dr. Siudzinski then read from the Academic Personnel Policies and Procedures of the University of North Florida, Chapter XI-25 and 26, which states: "... the recommendation not to renew a non- tenured faculty member will originate with the Chairman of the department and be concurred in by the Dean of the College and Vice President and Dean of Faculties." After this Dr. Sedlak was informed by Dr. Siudzinski that Dr. Siudzinski had conferred with the President, Vice President and Dean of Faculties, and the Dean of the College of Education at the University of North Florida and they had concurred with his decision and had authorized Siudzinski to recommend non-renewal. (The excerpts of the University of North Florida Academic Personnel Policies and Procedures, Chapter XI are found as Petitioner's Exhibit #60, admitted into evidence.) It is unclear whether Dr. Siudzinski did in fact confer with the President and gain his concurrence with the decision and authority to recommend non-renewal; however, there were some conferences between Siudzinski and Vice President and Dean of Faculties and the Dean of the College of Education. These individuals concurred with the decision and authorized Siudzinski to recommend the non-renewal of Dr. Sedlak's contract of employment with the University of North Florida. At that time the Vice President and Dean of Faculties was Dr. Roy L. Lassitor and the Dean of the College of Education was Dr. Andrew Robinson. Dr. Siudzinski, in the course of the conference with Dr. Sedlak on June 2, 1976 stated his reasons for recommending non-renewal. Those reasons were: Failure to cooperate with the Department Chairman. Failure to respond to the assistance quarter in amanner that benefited the Department. Unprofessional behavior during the assis tance quarter. Failure to contribute to the Department functioning commensurate with his rank (Reference was made to Dr. Sedlak's work on the 'Discrepancy Model.')" Finally, Dr. Siudzinski read from the University of North Florida Academic Personnel Policies and procedures, Chapter XI-26 and 27 which states: "prior to the transmission of the notice of non- reappointment, the University Officer initiating such action shall confer informally with the faculty member and explain the reasons for non-reappointment. The faculty member may request a written statement of reasons for non- reappointment within ten days after receiving the written notice. The request shall be in writing and the reasons shall be provided within ten days after the submission of the request. The notice of non-reappointment shall state in it the expiration date of the current contract and the effective date of termination and it shall indicate that the faculty member may appeal to the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities if he feels that the action is based on constitutionally impermissible grounds or to the President for review of the non-renewal decision when constitutional issues are not involved." Between June 2, 1976 and June 10, 1976, Dr. Roy Lassiter met with Dr. Sedlak and discussed, among other things, Dr. Sedlak's qualifications to remain on the faculty at the University of North Florida. Somewhere in this time period there was a discussion between Dr. Andrew Robinson and Dr. Sedlak, in which Dr. Robinson indicated that he concurred with the reasons which Dr. Siudzinski had given for the recommended non-renewal of Dr. Sedlak's contract, based upon Siudzinski's documentation and Siudzinski's reasons. On June 10, 1976, Dr. Thomas G. Carpenter, President of the University of North Florida, wrote to Dr. Sedlak recounting the conference of June 2, 1976, between Dr. Siudzinski and Dr. Sedlak, that informally notified Dr. Sedlak of the fact that his contract would not be renewed after June 15, 1976. The letter of Dr. Carpenter also indicated that formal notification of the action of non- renewal was being mailed June 10, 1976. Dr. Carpenter's letter further indicated that a new contract would be given to Dr. Sedlak effective June 16, 1976, for a contract year of 1976-77. (This letter had been prepared for Dr. Carpenter's signature by Dr. Lassiter, who is the delegated authority in matters of non-renewal of a non-tenured faculty member, in accordance with University of North Florida Academic Personnel Policies and Procedures, Chapter XI-25.) As Dr. Carpenter promised, formal notification of non-renewal of Dr. Sedlak's contract of employment was mailed from Dr. Robert M. Siudzinski, Chairman of the Department of Special Education, June 10, 1976. A copy of this letter of non-renewal is Petitioner's Exhibit #51, admitted into evidence. This letter served as official notification from the President of the University of North Florida, through his designee, Dr. Robert Siudzinski that Dr. Sedlak would not be appointed to the faculty of the Department of Special Education after June of 1977. The Siudzinski letter established that the current contract for the 1976-77 academic year would officially terminate on June 15, 1977. The letter stated that Dr. Sedlak could request a statement of reasons for the non- renewal within ten days of the date of receipt of the letter. The letter also attached the rules of the Board of Regents regarding the filing of grievances regarding non-renewal of contract. The letter went on to state that any grievance which Dr. Sedlak wished to file must be filed with the University President within 20 days after receipt of the letter, in accordance with quoted provisions. These provisions are drawn from the Chapter 6C-5.08(4)(c)5., Florida Administrative Code, which states: "any faculty member who deems himself aggrieved because of the recommendation that his contract of employment not be renewed and alleges (1) that the recommendation is based on constitutional impermissible reasons or (2) that it violates his property rights or (3) that it is not in compliance with written standards, criteria, or procedures prescribed by the Board of Regents or University regulations made within twenty days after receipt of the notice of non-renewal initiate his grievance by filing with the President, a complaint conforming to the requirements of paragraph (a) of Subsection (3) of this rule." Dr. Sedlak wrote a letter of June 14, 1976, to Dr. Siudzinski requesting a statement of reasons for non-renewal. This letter was responded to on June 22, 1976, in a letter by Dr. Siudzinski which stated four reasons for non-renewal of the contract. Those reasons being: "1. Failure to cooperate with the Department Chairman. Failure to respond to the assistance quarter in a manner that benefited the Department. Unprofessional behavior. Failure to contribute to the Department programs commensurate with rank and expectations at the time of initial appointment." Subsequent to the receipt of a statement of reasons, Dr. Sedlak filed his original letter of complaint of July 9, 1976. In accordance with Chapter 6C-5.08(4)(c)6., Florida Admin-istrative Code, Dr. Carpenter requested of Dr. Minor H. Chamblin, Acting Chairperson of the Faculty Grievance Committee of the University of North Florida, that an investigation be made of the complaint filed by Professor Sedlak in his July 9, 1976 letter. A copy of the report of that investigation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit #59, admitted into evidence. The investigation did not lead to the resolution of the complaint of Dr. Sedlak, as indicated by the ongoing proceedings. The underlying facts involved in the dispute over the non-renewal of Dr. Sedlak's contract, began with the initial interview for employment which was conducted by Dr. Siudzinski. It was Dr. Siudzinski's contention in his testimony given in the course of the hearing, that Dr. Sedlak was told in the employment interview, that the University of North Florida program in Special Education was designed to have students obtain competencies in their field, meaning that the program at the University of North Florida was a competency based program. Moreover, Dr. Siudzinski contended that he told Dr. Sedlak that behavior modification was a strong part of the University of North Florida program and that he felt that Dr. Sedlak was weak in the behavior modification area and needed to improve. Dr. Siudzinski testified that he told Dr. Sedlak these things, notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Sedlak was hired to teach coruses other than behavior modification courses. Dr. Siudzinski indicated in his testimony that Dr. Sedlak was encouraged to sit in on Dr. Siudzinski's behavior modification course as an aid to Sedlak's achieving competency in the area. In opposition to this statement, Dr. Sedlak's testimony in the hearing indicated that he assumed his duties as a teacher at the University of North Florida, following initial interviews, but these interviews did not include a discussion of the necessity that he, Dr. Sedlak, have a competency in behavior modification. He said, as indicated by his vita filed with the University of North Florida at the time of his employment, Dr. Sedlak had never taken courses in behavior modification, and according to Dr. Sedlak those courses were not required as a prerequisite to his employment at the University of North Florida. Dr. Sedlak stated that at the initial interview there was no discussion of the philosophy of the Department of special Education at the University of North Florida, nor did Dr. Siudzinski tell him that he was expected to get a competency in behavior modification. Finally, in the discussion of the question of the necessity for competency in behavior modification at the employment stage, several other members of the faculty of the Department of Special Education, University of North Florida, offered testimony. One of those witnesses was Clement Van Nagel who testified that he had been hired to teach behavior modification and the policy that behavior modification competency was necessary had been discussed at faculty meetings which Dr'. Sedlak attended. Another faculty member in the Department of Special Education, Thomas Serwatka, testified in the hearing and stated although he was not told that he would be required to teach behavior modification, he was told by Dr. Siudzinski that. The Department of Special Education was competency based and that it was behavioral in its orientation and Siudziriski wanted to know if Serwatka had a background in behavior modification. Another faculty member in the Department of Special Education who testified was Mary D' Zamko. Mrs. D' Zamko testified that when she was hired she was expected to have a competency in behavior modification and that to her knowledge other faculty members were held to the same standard of competency. She also indicated that this expectation was made clear in the staff meetings in which Dr. Sedlak was in attendance. Finally, Robert Gonzales, a member of the faculty of the Department of Special Education, testified that when he was hired that there was an expectation that he have a competency in behavior modification. From the testimony offered in the course of the hearing it is established that Dr. Siudzinski apprised Dr. Sedlak of the expectation that Dr. Sedlak have a competency in behavior modification to be a member of the faculty at the University of North Florida and it is further established that this requirement was enunciated at intervals during the course of faculty meetings at the University of North Florida which Dr. Sedlak attended. Petitioner's Exhibit #9, is a composite exhibit which was admitted during the course of the hearing. This exhibit contains a letter of December 9, 1974, from Dr. Siudzinski setting out the period of appointment of Dr. Sedlak as Associate Professor of Education effective December 16, 1974, for a period to run through June 30, 1975. This letter sets out the major duties which Professor Sedlak was expected to perform. Professor Sedlak accepted the contract and appropriate administrative officials approved the hiring. From the time of the initial employment up to and including the date of the annual evaluation, which was held on June 3, 1975, nothing of any significance occurred. The annual evaluation of Dr. Sedlak's performance was conducted by Dr. Siudzinski on June 3, 1975. Prior to that date Dr. Sedlak was recommended for appointment for the summer quarter of 1975 effective June 23, 1975, as shown by Petitioner's Exhibit #14, admitted into evidence. Dr. Sedlak was approved for that quarter. In the evaluation session of June 3, 1975, mention was made of a problem which Dr. Siudzinski felt that Dr. Sedlak had in understanding, a so called "Discrepancy Evaluation Model." Dr. Siudzinski felt that from his observation of Dr. Sedlak's performance in instructing on this model, that Dr. Sedlak did not have a satisfactory understanding of it. Petitioner's Exhibit #15, admitted into evidence is a memorandum of June 5, 1975 dealing with the problem of Sedlak's understanding and his contribution to the underlying project. The fo1low up of the June 3, 1975 evaluation conference is found in a memorandum of June 5, 1975, which is Petitioner's Exhibit #15, admitted into evidence. In addition a memorandum was filed to the folder of Dr. Sedlak, dated June 27, 1975, from Dr. Siudzinski. A copy of this memorandum is Petitioner's Exhibit #17, admitted into evidence and the exhibit shows that Dr. Sedlak was recommended for reappointment for the year 1975- 1976. A copy of the offer of reappointment is found in Petitioner's Exhibit #19, admitted into evidence. This is an August 1, 1975, letter from Dr. Siudzinski indicating that the period of employment is from September 15, 1975 through June 15, 1976. Dr. Sedlak accepted this employment. Other action taken on the Petitioner's employment in 1975 would include a recommendation from Dr. Roy L. Lassiter, Jr., Vice President and Dean of Faculties, that Dr. Sedlak be given credit toward tenure at the University of North Florida for service at other institutions of higher education. This letter is in the form of a recommendation and a copy of the letter is Petitioner's Exhibit #21, admitted into evidence. The next notable event occurred in October or November of 1975, when an unidentified number of students objected to Dr. Siudzinski that Dr. Sedlak had assigned tests in his courses and not given those tests; to be followed by a period in which a group of tests were given to the students at one sitting. It is not clear that these complaints were made known to Dr. Sedlak and no official indication of these complaints was placed in the departmental file kept on Dr. Sedlak. In January, 1976, under a grant program, members of the faculty of the Department of Special Education, University of North Florida conducted a series of workshops on the subject of the aged. One of these workshops was conducted in St. Augustine, Florida on January 24, 1976. A part of the program was presented by Dr. Sedlak and Dr. Siudzinski observed part of the presentation. According to Dr. Sedlak, in a debriefing session Dr. Siudzinski indicated that he felt that certain of the information was irrelevant and counter to the behavioristic philosophy of the Department, to which Dr. Sedlak stated he protested and indicated that he had taught what was in the prescribed textbook. Dr. Sedlak testified that the subject then turned to Dr. Siudzinski's question of him, whether Sedlak had told anybody else about an incident which he had seen between a student and Siudzinski. Sedlak testified that the incident spoken of referred to Siudzinski being seen by Sedlak embracing and kissing a student, whom Sedlak knew. Sedlak claimed that he told Siudzinski that this incident was none of Sedlak's business and that he had said nothing. The subject, per Sedlak's testimony, then turned to whether Sedlak would be at the University of North Florida next year and Siudzinski supposedly said he really didn't know if Sedlak would fit in. The "incident" spoken of was supposed to have occurred a couple of weeks before this conversation. Siudzinski's version of the workshop debriefing was that he criticized Sedlak for being at variance with the purpose of the workshop, in that Sedlak was labeling matters and not dealing in the observable and measurable. Moreover, Siudzinski testified that some of the things that Dr. Sedlak was dealing in were contrary to what was being said by others participating in the workshop. Siudzinski claims he then brought up a complaint by a student which had been relayed through a secretary in the office of the Department of Special Education. Sedlak, by Siudzinski's statement, was kidding the student by saying that he had seen Siudzinski parked in front of her house. This was the total account of the January 24, 1976 debriefing, from Siudzinski's point of view. Dr. Siudzinski denies any incident in which he embraced a student or kissed a student. The subject was brought up again on January 27, 1976, after Siudzinski had attended one of Dr. Sedlak's classes for an hour and a half and spoke with him about the teaching. During the course of that conversation, Sedlak accused Siudzinski of "being on his back" and a heated argument ensued. Sedlak claims Siudzinski admitted being on his back about the so called "incident" with the "student" and Siudzinski claims that Sedlak told him that he would smear his, Siudzinski's name and family, so that he could not hold his head up in the community. Siudzinski said that he responded to this statement by asking Sedlak to resign. Another subject which was brought up on January 27, 1976, during the course of the discussion of the class, was Siudzinski's inquiry as to why Sedlak was teaching the I.T.P.A. tests, which Siudzinski thought was Inappropriate, by Sedlak's testimony. Dr. Siudzinski did not testify on whether he commented on teaching the I.T.P.A. or not. He simply said that he found some good things and some bad things in Dr. Sedlak's teaching. After the discussion of January 27, 1976, Dr. Siudzinski called Dr. Lassitor the next morning and told Dr. Lassiter of his concern about the accusations which Dr. Sedlak had placed against him on the subject of the student incident. Dr. Siudzinski observed another of Dr. Sedlak's classes on January 28, 1976. About this time period, Dr. Siudzinski prepared a first draft of a document entitled Discrepancy Evaluation Model Competencies which he intended to evaluate Dr. Sedlak on. Petitioner's Exhibit #24 is this document. In addition, Dr. Siudzinski submitted as a part of a memorandum of February 2, 1976, certain competencies in the behavior modification area which he expected to evaluate Dr. Sedlak on. The copies of this memorandum and the evaluation on behavior modification are found as Petitioner's Exhibit #25, admitted into evidence. These items found as Petitioner's Exhibits #24 and #25 were provided for Sedlak. These discussions mentioned above, between Dr. Sedlak and Dr. Siudzinski, were continued on February 5, 1976. On February 6, 1976, a meeting was held between Dean White, the then Dean of the College of Education, University of North Florida; Dr. Andrew Robinson; Dr. Siudzinski and Dr. Sedlak with the idea of trying to reconcile the differences between Dr. Siudzinski and Dr. Sedlak. The meeting also had as a topic of discussion, the propriety of requiring Dr. Sedlak to demonstrate his competency in behavior modification and the subject of the discrepancy evaluation model. There is a memorandum of February 9, 1976, indicating that there was a conversation between Professor Sedlak and Siudzinski. This memorandum is Petitioner's Exhibit #27, admitted into evidence. Dr. Sedlak does not recall this conversation and Dr. Siudzinski offered no testimony about it. A meeting was held February 10, 1976, between Dean White, Dr. Robinson, Dr. Sedlak and Dr. Siudzinski in which Dean White and Dr. Robinson suggested that If Dr. Sedlak had a complaint to make about Siudzinski's morals or behavior, he should state them. Sedlak's reply was that he had noting to say at that time. Dr. Robinson recalls that other subjects in the conversation were the question of Dr. Sedlak's competency in behavior modification and the possibility of offering an assistance quarter to improve Dr. Sedlak's knowledge of behavior modification. Siudzinski was to go back and think about what to do on the subject of the assistance quarter. In this same time frame there were several conversations between Dr. Siudzinski and Dr. Lassiter concerning Dr. Sedlak's performance and Dr. Lassiter had indicated that he thought that perhaps an assistance quarter was a proper aid, even though the matter concerned Dr. Sedlak's qualifications as opposed to his teaching skills. This subject of an assistance quarter was also discussed between Dr. Lassiter and Dr. Robinson at about this time. A meeting was held on February 13, 1976, between Dr. Siudzinski and Dr. Sedlak. A memorandum which summarized the results of that meeting is Petitioner's Exhibit #29, admitted into evidence and made a part of the record herein. This particular meeting was an evaluation session in which Dr. Siudzinski discussed one of the courses which Dr. Sedlak was teaching, to wit, EEC 604. He also mentioned the S.E.P.A. program audit which Sedlak was to participate in. Discussion was entered into about remedying the deficiency in behavior modification, which Dr. Siudzinski felt that Dr. Sedlak had. Suggestions offered were; taking a class and peer evaluation. The Discrepancy Model of Evaluation was also discussed and Dr. Siudzinski removed Dr. Sedlak from that project. The removal occurred because Dr. Siudzinski had talked to Professor D'Zamko and come to the conclusion, based on that conversation and his own observations, that Sedlak did not understand the project sufficiently and was not providing equitable participation with D'Zamko. Dr. Sedlak had not boon privy to the conversation between D'Zamko and Siudzinski. Dr. Sedlak complied with the request pertaining to EEC 604 and apparently complied with the request pertaining to the S.E.P.A. program audit. On February 27, 1976, a memorandum which is Petitioner's Exhibit #32, was sent from Dr. Siudzinski to Dr. Sedlak requesting an appointment between the two. Dr. Sedlak did not respond to the memorandum and a memorandum of March 8, 1976 was sent as a follow up requesting a meeting. This memorandum, Petitioner's Exhibit #33, admitted Into evidence, specifically sets out the topic of the meeting. One of the topics of the meeting, which was conducted on March 10, 1978, concerned the efforts which Dr. Sedlak had taken to cover one of his class sessions, EEC 604. The form that was filled out to have a sub-stitute teacher showed the wrong date. The form additionally indicated that Dr. Van Nagel would conduct the entire class, which was not possible since Dr. Van Nagel had a scheduling conflict for the first two hours of the four hour session, which was to be the length of time of Dr. Sedlak's class on that occasion. Dr. Sedlak had requested Dr. Cathy Hartman, another member of the faculty, to cover the first part of the class, and this was not reflected on the form. Dr. Hartman was unable to cover the class and this knowledge was only made known at 5:00 P.M. the day before the class session. The first part of the class to be covered was one in which a test was given to the students. Dr. Siudzinski took over that portion of the class and found the test instrument was not fair to those persons who did not have miniature calculators and the substance of the test was not acceptable in his view. A summary of the evaluation session of March 10, 1976, is Petitioner's Exhibit #34, admitted into evidence and made a part of the record herein. Dr. Siudzinski requested that he be provided with the test instruments involved in the EEC 604 course. One of the test instruments was the one given by Dr. Siudzinski and is Petitioner'S Exhibit #35, admitted into evidence. Of the remaining test instruments, one or more were never provided to Dr. Siudzinski. Dr. Sedlak's explanation was that some of the tests had been destroyed and some of the tests were found subsequent to the time that he was removed from the Department of Special Education. Another subject in the evaluation session of March 10, 1976 was the discussion of behavior modification. No resolution was reached on the subject of the possibility of Dr. Sedlak taking a course in behavior modification and Dr. Siudzinski agreed to look into this further. The memorandum covering the evaluation session indicates that an agreement was reached on a meeting to be held with Dr. Andrew Robinson on March 12, 1976, to discuss the assistance quarter, which was to begin March 26, 1976. Dr. Sedlak claims that no such discussion was entered into concerning the subject of assistance quarter or a meeting with Dr. Robinson. Dr. Siudzinski remembers that the subject of setting up an assistance quarter had been discussed in an evaluation session, although he does not mention which session. In fact, after a memorandum of notice, a meeting was held with the then Dean Designate Andrew Robinson on March 18, 1976. At the meeting Dean Robinson had a copy of the memorandum summary of the meeting of March 10, 1976 between Dr. Sedlak and Dr. Siudzinski which is Petitioner's Exhibit #34, admitted into evidence. Dr. Robinson indicated that he felt that the problem with the class coverage was serious. Dr. Sedlak responded that he thought this was trivial. Nonetheless, Dr. Robinson instructed Dr. Sedlak that these matters would begin to pile up. The subject of the assistance quarter was brought up, and Dr. Robinson indicated that if Dr. Sedlak refused to participate in the assistance quarter and resigned, he wanted to know what Dr. Siudzinski would provide in the way of an employment reference. Dr. Siudzinski indicated that he would not volunteer any derogatory information about Dr. Sedlak to a prospective employer. The subject of an assistance quarter was concluded by Dr. Robinson telling Dr. Sedlak that he would expect the assistance quarter to he a part of the spring quarter duties of Dr. Sedlak. Dr. Sedlak, in his testimony in the hearing, denied that any conversation on the assistance quarter was entered into. Dr. Siudzinski again asked for the test instruments which were involved in EEC 604 and Dr. Sedlak refused to give these instruments to Dr. Siudzinski but indicated that he would give them to Dr. Robinson. As stated before, some of these test instruments were never provided to Dr. Siudzinski, nor were they provided to Dr. Robinson. Dr. Robinson also asked Dr. Sedlak at the meeting were there reasons other than professional ones why Dr. Siudzinski would be putting Dr. Sedlak through an assistance quarter. Dr. Sedlak responded that he would not deal with that at that time. After the meeting between Siudzinski, Robinson, and Sedlak, Sedlak came to Robinson's office and stated that the reason Siudzinski was after him was because one day Sedlak had caught Siudzinski and a student in a compromising situation. Robinson responded to this statement by saying that if Sedlak would make formal charges against Siudzinski he would Investigate and discipline Siudzinski if it were true; however, if It was untrue, Dr. Sedlak would be disciplined. Dr. Sedlak said he would need time to think about such a complaint. He never did offer to make a formal complaint. Between the winter and spring quarters of 1976, Dr. Sedlak entered the hospital for a kidney disorder. He had signed out for a car from the University on the day he entered the hospital. The car was signed out from the University to go to Lake City, Florida to teach a workshop for the aged. When he became ill he went to the hospital and parked the car, leaving the car with the keys in the ignition. He then called Dr. Siudzinski and told him he could not attend the workshop the next day because he was in the hospital, after which he hung up. He did not indicate to Dr. Siudzinski which hospital he was in. Through the efforts of the administration and in particular Dr. Siudzinski, it was determined that Dr. Sedlak was in Memorial Hospital, Jacksonville. Dr. Sedlak did not indicate his whereabouts until the next day, at which time he called Dr. Siudzinski and indi-cated that the car was in the Memorial Hospital parking lot. Dr. Robinson was concerned about the health issue and offered to allow Dr. Sedlak to assume some other duties other than teaching in the spring quarter of 1976. Dr. Sedlak declined his offer and returned to his teaching duties. Dr. Robinson made clear that this return to teaching would cause Dr. Sedlak to be treated as any other teacher even though he was going to be on an assistance quarter. As a part of this discussion, Dr. Robinson required Dr. Sedlak to produce a letter saying he was capable of performing his teaching duties Dr. Sedlak responded by correspondence of March 29, 1976, which is Petitioner's Exhibit #39, admitted into evidence. Dr. Siudzinski followed this letter by a letter of March 30, 1970 to Dr. Sedlak which is Petitioner's Exhibit #40, admitted into evidence and indicates that in the spring quarter, Dr. Sedlak would perform duties as an Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education, as well as the additional responsibilities that had been discussed, meaning the assistance quarter. Again Dr. Sedlak denies that the assistance quarter was to be performed. On April 1, 1976, Dr. Siudzinski discussed a meeting of March 29, 1976, between he and Sedlak and reiterates his request for the exams, the five examinations which were used In the winter quarter course EEC 604. Petitioner's Exhibit #42, admitted into evidence, is a composite exhibit containing two examinations of the winter quarter of 1976 and three sets of answers. These items were found in June or July, 1976, but as stated were never given Dr. Siudzinski. Another evaluation session was held between Dr. Siudzinski and Dr. Sedlak on April 22, 1976. A summary of this evaluation session is found in Petitioner's Exhibit #43, admitted into evidence and made a part of the record herein. Some of the subjects covered in the evaluation session included a discussion of the attendance of a workshop on behavior modification, and another request that the examinations for the EEC 604 course be provided. He was also requested to provide the instruments and techniques involved in that course and other courses being taught by Dr. Sedlak. These were provided. An inquiry was made about the progress that Dr. Sedlak had made in mastering Discrepancy Model Competencies contained in the list of January 30, 1976. Other matters covered were the progress which Dr. Sedlak had made on the mastering of behavior modification competencies set up in the memorandum of February 2, 1976. It was also discussed that Dr. Sedlak was not answering his phone in the office. Finally, Dr. Siudzinski indicated that he might be visiting Dr. Sedlak's classes in the future and requested his list of competencies that were to be covered. Dr. Sedlak stated that he would not provide the exams in the EEC 604 class without speaking to the union. He made a similar reply on the request for instruments and techniques in other courses and a similar reply about progress which he had made in mastering the Discrepancy Model Competencies. Additionally, he said he refused to be tested on the Discrepancy Model Competencies, since he was an Associate Professor. He made the same response to the inquiry on progress on behavior modification competencies. He also stated that many of the behavior modification competencies were incorporated in his classes. (Sedlak also taught several sessions on behavior modification for the Duval County School Board outside his normal duties.) The complaint about answering the phone was responded to by Dr. Sedlak in which he said that when he was busy with someone in the office or working on something important, it was not necessary to answer the phone. He agreed to produce the list of competencies to be covered in his upcoming classes. The summary of the evaluation goes on to request in writting copies of the exams in the EEC 604 course for the winter quarter 1976. It also requests in writting, copies of the instruments and descriptions of techniques in evaluating courses being taught by Dr. Sedlak. It requests in writting an answer on progress made in mastering the Discrepancy Model Competencies of January 30, 1976 and the progress made in mastering behavior modification competencies attached to the memo of February 2, 1976. In connection with the discussion of instruments and techniques in evaluating students in the courses being taught by Dr. Sedlak, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #44, admitted into evidence, is copies of classes assigned to be taught by Dr. Sedlak for the period of his stay with the Department of Special Education. On April 27, 1976, Dr. Sedlak responded to the memorandum on the meeting on April 22, 1976. In this memorandum he suggested that the tests were not kept and that he does not traditionally keep tests and asked why the matter of the tests of the EEC 604, winter quarter kept coming up. He stated that he provided evaluation instruments for EEC 500 as enclosed and stated that the other evaluation instruments were not kept for other courses. His response to the Discrepancy Model of Evaluation was that he had been removed from responsibilities in the area and made no further response. Finally, in response to the question on behavior modification competencies, he simply stated that he had given workshops in behavior modification for Duval County Schools. On May 28, 1976, a memorandum was sent to Dr. Sedlak from Dr. Siudzinski requesting a meeting for the annual evaluation to be held June 2, 1976. During the spring quarter of 1976, Dr. Roy L. Lassitor met with members of the facultv of the Department of Special Education other than Dr. Siudzinski and Dr. Sedlak and requested them to answer several questions. Me asked them if Dr. Siudzinski was involved with any female students to their knowledge, to which they responded no. He asked them if the faculty was aware of any incident between Dr. Siudzinski and some student and they responded yes, but only as a rumor. He asked them if they had confidence in Dr. Siudzinski as chairperson and they responded that they did. The persons contacted were Dr. Van Nagel, Dr. Serwatka, Mrs. D'Zamko and Dr. Gonzales. In that quarter, Dr. Robinson met several times with Dr. Siudzinski to try to clear up the progress that had been made by Dr. Sedlak on the assistance quarter. He also met with Dr. Sedlak and reminded him that he expected Sedlak to perform the assistance quarter laid out by Siudzinski. Respondent's Exhibit #2, admitted into evidence, is a list of Dr. Robinson's suggestions for the assistance quarter. In other meetings with Siudzinski, Siudzinski stated that very few things that Dr. Sedlak had been requested to do had been done, and that he thought that Sedlak should be terminated. Some of the complaints that Siudzinski related to Dr. Robinson were, intimidation of secretaries, graduate students and assistants and disparaging remarks about Siudzinski. Dr. Robinson told Siudzinski to but these matters in writting and after reviewing the case, Dr. Robinson concurred with Siudzinski that Dr. Sedlak's contract should not be renewed. There was a meeting between Dr. Sedlak and Dr. Lassiter which has been previously referred to in the body of facts, specificallv the meeting between June 2, 1976 and June 10, 1976. In that meeting Dr. Lassiter offered Dr. Sedlak the opportunity to make charges against Dr. Siudzinski for his alleged improper conduct. Lassiter stated that he would remove the Chairman if it was a true claim and proceed to terminate Dr. Sedlak for cause if the charges of improper conduct with a student wore false. Sedlak did not bring a charge. An examination of the evidential facts indicates that the recommendation of the non-renewal of the Petitioner's contract, (1) was not based upon a constitutionally impermissible reason, (2) was not violative of any of the Petitioner's property rights and (3) complied with written standards, criteria, and procedures prescribed by the Board of Regents and university regulations. The briefs filed by the parties have been examined and the elements of those briefs which are deemed to be meritorious have been incorporated into the findings of fact of the undersigned.
Recommendation It Is recommended that the Respondent, University of North Florida, not renew the Petitioner's contract of employment with the University of North Florida beyond June 15, 1977 and that the Petitioner be found unentitled to restoration of rights and privileges previously enjoyed before the recommendation of non-renewal of his employment contract with the University of North Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Anthony Demelas American Federal of Teachers 160 College Street Burlington, Vermont Delbridge L. Gibbs, Esquire Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Dr. Joseph Sedlak 5336 Windemere Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Kenneth A. Megill Florida Education Association/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of September, 2002.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, June C. Rawls, currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 240351, covering the areas of early childhood education and elementary education, which is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent has been employed by the Dade County Public School System for 25 consecutive years and was so employed at all times pertinent to these proceedings. During the 1990-91 school year, respondent was employed as a kindergarten teacher at Gloria Floyd Elementary School. Her class, comprised of 5 and 6-year-olds, was typical in terms of class size, with 22 to 24 students, and in terms of the nature of her students, with the vast majority considered within the "norm" and two or three that might ultimately be identified as "outstanding" or "exceptional" students. Here, petitioner charges that during the 1990-91 school year respondent used inappropriate physical force to discipline or control the behavior of her students, and made inappropriate or disparaging remarks to her students. The proof overwhelmingly supports such charges and demonstrates that not only did respondent subject her youthful charges to such loathsome conduct, but that she did so on a routine basis. 1/ Regarding the verbal abuse respondent visited upon her students, the proof demonstrates that she routinely spoke in a loud, harsh and intimidating voice, and ridiculed, mocked and denigrated her students. Exemplifying the tenor of remarks she vented upon various of her student or the class are the following: "You're no good, I know you're no good, you're mother knows you're no good and you're father knows you're know [sic] good so sit down and shut up." In a 7 minute tirade, abraded a student with the following remarks: the "reason you're parents don't like you; you are so bad; when you come home tonight you're parents are going to be gone, they're going to go off and leave you; you are so bad; nobody likes you, you're parents don't love you." Abrading the entire class, she commented with regard to their comparative worth with the class next door, which was a prekindergarten, high risk, special education class, the following: "If you don't shut up you're going to be like those kids next door, you know what their like. If you don't, you're going to be just like those children next door; you are just like those children next door; you're stupid; you're dumb." Upon being advised by another teacher that she had found a dollar lying on respondent's classroom floor, and one of the respondent's students averring that it was his, respondent remarked in a loud strident voice so the entire class could hear that he "was a sick puppy, . . . he would never amount to anything and it was no wonder his parents didn't like him and [that the other teacher] shouldn't touch the money since it had been in his underwear." And, variously, "you're not worth anything," and "you're dumb, you're never going to be anything." In addition to the loud, harsh and intimidating voice respondent used to address her students, she was also physically abusive towards them. In this regard, the proof demonstrates the following: Respondent would occasionally drag students across the floor by their wrists to the "time out corner," and slap them; pick students off the ground by their wrists and shake them; and roughly push or slam them into their seats or on the floor. On one occasion, respondent picked a student up by the jaws, about two feet off the floor, and carried the child about seven or eight feet across the room. Respondent was observed pushing students, pulling their hair, squeezing their ears and pinching them. On one occasion, respondent was observed angrily throwing a back pack and lunch box across the classroom, and on another occasion, she was observed to have kicked a child who had kicked another child. Finally, respondent was observed to have forced her students to sit in a cross legged position, and when one child apparently was having problems because the child's legs were getting cramped and opened them up, respondent took the child's legs and slammed them close to cross them again. The foregoing incidents of verbal and physical abuse reflect the tenor of respondent's conduct toward her students during the course of the 1990-91 school year, which was routinely punctuated by verbal haranguing. Such conduct failed to present a good example, as a role model, for the students or set a good example for the children to emulate in dealing with their peers; caused various students to become hysterical,cower, cry and fear respondent; damaged their self esteem; and raised concern that her rough handling of students could result in serious injury to them, such as damage to their spinal cord. Respondent's conduct during the 1990-91 school year was condemned by her peers and parents. Such conduct evidenced a reckless indifference to the mental and physical well-being of her students, was contrary to Dade County Public School policy which forbids the use of corporal punishment, and such punishment was administered contrary to the provisions of state law. Section 232.27, Florida Statutes. While respondent's conduct during the 1990-91 school year forms the basis for the charges lodged against her by petitioner, the proof demonstrates, as elicited by respondent, that her abusive behavior was not limited to that school year. Rather, the proof demonstrates that the demeanor she exhibited towards her students deteriorated over the two-year period preceding the 1990-91 school year, and her verbal haranguing continued into the 1991-92 school year even though she had been reassigned to teach a higher grade level. In December 1991, respondent's physician advised her, after consulting him for some "physical problems," that "different chemicals within [her] body were elevated and he thought [she] should seek counseling or take some time off from work." Consequently, respondent took two weeks leave, in addition to her normal Christmas holidays, and during such time saw a psychologist for counseling. The record is, however, devoid of any proof concerning respondent's diagnosis, the purpose for the counseling, the frequency of the counseling, or the prognosis for her recovery from the condition, albeit unexplained of record, which prompted her referral to counseling. What does appear of record is, however, the fact that what ever counseling she received was limited to December 1991, and that she has sought no counseling since that time. In January 1991, following the Christmas holidays, respondent returned to Gloria Floyd Elementary School, where she remained until she was transferred to another school in May 1992. Apparently no change occurred in respondent's behavior because, notwithstanding counseling, respondent's principal was of the opinion, which is credited, that respondent "should leave the classroom . . . I don't think she should be teaching elementary school." While severe, the conclusion that respondent should not be permitted to return to the classroom, at the current time, is well supported by the clear and present danger respondent posed to her students' mental and physical well- being during the 1990-91 school year, and the lack of any compelling proof that such conduct would not reasonably be expected to repeat itself. In so concluding, respondent's testimony that she has not suffered similar problems during the 1992-93 school year has not been overlooked; however, such testimony is not persuasive or credible given respondent's contemporaneous denial, in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary, that she ever committed any of the acts of verbal or physical abuse heretofore discussed, and would never have done so because it would have been "demeaning and disparaging" to the students. In sum, respondent is either a prevaricator or her grasp of reality is so distorted as to lack reliability, such that her testimony is unworthy of belief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which permanently revokes respondent's teaching certificate for a term of five (5) years. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of February 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February 1993.
