Findings Of Fact M.G., as he is now known, was born on May 30, 1966. He attended kindergarten at Rainbow Park Elementary School. After beginning first grade in the fall of 1972, at Miami Baptist Temple, a private school, he entered Westview Elementary, one of Respondent's schools, in 1973. On May 3, 1974, he transferred to South Miami Elementary, another public school. Even before the transfer, his mother realized M.G. could not read, but she approached his teachers only after the family had moved and M.G. was settled in his new school. Ms. Mitchell, the second grade teacher with whom Mrs. G. conferred in the spring of 1974, told her that the school system would arrange various tests and interviews that might shed some light on M.G.'s academic difficulties. Among Respondent's records is a note from Ms. Mitchell dated June 13, 1974, saying, "M.G.'s Mother has requested a psychological evaluation. She is very much concerned as to why M. [h]as not been able to make more academic progress (and so am I)." Respondent caused psychological testing to be done in the middle of the following school year. On January 27, 1975, Elizabeth I. Smith, a psychologist in Respondent's employ, finished her psychological evaluation of M.G. Ms. Smith decided that M.G. had "a poor self-concept", "dependency needs", and "paranoid tendencies"; and that he was "a rather lonely child" and "ha[d] too strong a tendency to delay emotional satisfaction." Joint Exhibit No. 7. At this time, administration of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children indicated that M.G. had normal "full scale" intelligence (101), with subtest scores ranging from 5 (coding) to 16 (object assembly). Contemporaneous Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) scores put him a year or more behind the average child at his grade level, with scores ranging from 1.8 (spelling) to 2.1 (reading) to 2.4 (arithmetic). On the WRAT, he mistook "41" for "14". Errors on the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test indicated inadequate auditory discrimination. Ms. Smith concluded that M.G. had perceptual difficulties that should be evaluated, but decided that his main problems were emotional. Inter alia, she recommended "[r]esource into an Emotionally Disturbed Class . . . [and a]dministration of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities" (ITPA). Joint Exhibit No. 7. The ITPA is administered to children (up to ten years old) in an effort to measure auditory and visual process deficits, among other things. After talking to Ms. Smith, Mrs. G. signed a form on February 21, 1975, authorizing Respondent to place M.G. in a class for emotionality disturbed children for part of the day. At the time, she was unaware that Respondent had full-time classes for children with specific learning disabilities. The teacher of the class for emotionally disturbed children told M.G.'s parents that "she would be working with him with his LD problem." (T. 153.) Respondent never administered the ITPA to M.G.. Dr. Ronald I. Cantwell, a pediatrician who limits his practice to developmental disabilities, first examined M.G. in January of 1975. He found that M.G. confused left with right, had difficulty copying foot patterns, was unable to distinguish between "12" and "21" or between "b" and "d", and could not remember a sequence of five numbers or letters. Codeine acted to excite rather than to sedate M.G. Dr. Cantwell felt M.G.'s principal problems were academic rather than emotional, and recommended tutoring. With tutoring during the summer of 1975, M.G. learned multiplication tables, which he forgot after school began that fall, even though his tutoring continued. In the middle of the following school year, H.U. Puryear, a psychologist in Respondent's employ, concluded, on a psychological referral form dated February 3, 1976, that M.G.'s tutoring should be rescheduled so as not to conflict with school hours, if tutoring was really needed, and that "assignment to another E.D. setting requires no additional professional [psychological] procedures." Joint Exhibit No. 8. M.G. spent the latter part of the fourth grade in a varying exceptionalities class at South Miami Elementary. M.G. is tutored at Dr. Cantwell's Pediatric Achievement Center the summer following fourth grade, just as he had been the summer before. In addition to this tutoring, M.G. had the help of his mother and an uncle, who between them spent four hours a night with M.G., during the first semester of the fifth grade. M.G. and his mother grew increasingly disturbed about his slow progress in school, especially in light of his performance at home. In December of 1976, Mrs. G. attended a conference which Dr. Marshall, head of Respondent's Southwest Area office, Mr. Torano, principal of South Miami Elementary, Lenora Hays, M.G.'s "regular fifth grade teacher," and Ms. Jackson, who had begun two weeks earlier as the teacher of M.G.'s varying exceptionalities class, also attended. At the conference, Ms. Hays undertook to locate either a science or a social studies textbook on a more appropriate level. Mrs. G. sought to persuade the school authorities to transfer M.G. to Ms. Patterson's "continuing LD class," but she was unable to. (T. 168.) After Christmas vacation, in January of 1977, M.G. began at Gables Academy, a private school for children with learning disabilities, where he finished fifth grade and spent sixth and seventh grades. At Gables Academy, M.G. won "an award for advancing two years in every subject . . . an award for reading" (T. 93) , and other awards. The evidence did not reveal the qualifications of Gables Academy's staff, what its school day and school year are, whether it maintains current sanitation, health, or fire inspection certificates, what its procedures to protect the confidentiality of student records are, what written policies it has, if any, and whether it has filed required assurances or reports. Ms. Evelyn Orkney, who was certified as a school psychologist in Connecticut before she moved to Miami, saw M.G. on April 22 and May 13, 1977, before she prepared her initial "psychoeducational evaluation." Joint Exhibit No. 2. She reported WRAT scores of 2.9 (spelling), 3.5 (reading recognition), and 3.9 (arithmetic), and full scale I.Q. of 106. Ms. Orkney observed that M.G.'s "dialogue revealed bitter memories of public school." Joint Exhibit No. 2. She concluded that M.G. "Possesses average aptitude . . . [with] residuals of visual motor problems . . . [and] a significant problem in auditory sequential memory." Joint Exhibit No. 2. Ms. Orkney again evaluated M.G. on August 9, 1979, at which time she observed that he "virtually never experiences depression or bitterness." In the 1979 "psychoeducational re-evaluation," Ms. Orkney reported WRAT scores of 3.5 (spelling), and 6.3 (arithmetic). The Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude, the ITPA, the Slosson Drawing Coordination, Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt, and other tests were also administered. Ms. Orkney concluded that the "Detroit and ITPA tests confirm severe deficit in the auditory memory area and recommended "special instruction in spelling, as well as auditory sequential memory training and design integration exercises." On the basis of second-hand information, some of which was erroneous, Ms. Orkney recommended that M.G. remain at Gables Academy rather than return to public school. M.G. was evaluated at Respondent's Diagnostic and Resource Center on August 29 and 30, 1979, and a report dated September 27, 1979, was prepared. A number of tests were administered, including the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, various psychological projective tests, the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty and Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery: Test of Cognitive Ability, Memory for Sentences. M.G.'s vision and hearing were also tested. The diagnostic team concluded that M.G. was "somewhat rigid hut d[id] not have a primary emotional handicap for educational programming purposes." They recommended a specific learning disability program with "primary emphasis in the auditory and visual attention skill areas," and conferences with the school counselor. In their view, his weakest skills were reading and spelling, reflecting "specific process deficits in the visual aid auditory attention areas," as well as in visual memory of words, while arithmetic and general information were strengths. The team made detailed recommendations regarding teaching techniques. Richard Maisel, a clinical psychologist, evaluated M.G. on January 14 and 23 and February 5 and 14, 1980. Joint Exhibit No. 5. He reported WRAT scores of 2.7 (spelling), 4.1 (reading) and 5.6 (arithmetic). Dr. Maisel concluded that M.G. has average intelligence with "very significant auditory and visual attention, memory and sequencing problems." Joint Exhibit No. 5. Dr. Maisel reported "emotional difficulties . . . superimposed upon the underlying learning disability" for which he recommended "psychotherapeutic intervention." He recommended "full-time placement in a learning disabilities program." Joint Exhibit No. 5. M.G. himself wanted, at the time of the hearing, to go to Gables Academy. He remembered assignments at public school that he felt were insultingly simple; and the taunts of children in regular classes; and he did not get along with one of his teachers in public school. He did not want to go to South Miami Junior High because he had "seen injection needles and pill bottles" (T. 91) there as he rode home from Gables Academy. He wanted to "look over a learning disabilities program at Ponce de Leon Junior High School, another public school, but felt he would "really like to go back to Gables Academy]." (T. 92) On November 7, 1979, public school officials, in conjunction with M.G. and his parents, drew up an IEP for the 1979-1980 school year, recommending a full-time learning disabilities placement. Joint Exhibit No. 6. By that time, however, the G.s were obligated for tuition for the 1979-1980 school year, so M.G. stayed the school year there. No IEP had been prepared for the 1980-1981 school year, at the time of the hearing, but Myra Silverstein, a placement specialist in Respondent's employ, testified that a full-time learning disabilities placement would still be appropriate. Such a program is available at Ponce de Leon Junior High. It would include four hours of specific learning disabilities instruction daily by use more teachers along with "mainstream" classes in physical education and shop, art, or some other elective. At Ponce de Leon Junior High School, there is a counselor who works only with student in special education classes.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is eligible to enroll in the Developmental Disabilities Program administered by the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administering and determining eligibility for services to developmentally disabled individuals pursuant to Florida's Developmental Disabilities Prevention and Community Services Act, Chapter 393, Florida Statutes. Section 393.065, Florida Statutes. The program developed by the Department is known as the Developmental Disabilities Program. Mr. Davis is a resident of Miami, Florida, and is 20 years of age. Mr. Davis submitted an application to the Department requesting that it enroll him in its Developmental Disabilities Program and provide him services as a developmentally disabled individual. The Department evaluated Mr. Davis's application and determined that he was not eligible to receive services through the Developmental Disabilities Program. In making this determination, the Department considered a Psychiatric Evaluation Summary dated August 18, 1998, that was prepared by J.O. Pagan, M.D. Dr. Pagan stated in the summary that Mr. Davis was "diagnosed early in his life as a child with Autistic characteristics," and he noted that, throughout his life, Mr. Davis has "had symptoms associated to hyperactivity, Tics, and perseverance behaviors." According to Dr. Pagan, Mr. Davis "diagnostically belongs in the Autistic Spectrum and more specifically to the Asperger's Syndrome." In evaluating Mr. Davis's eligibility for enrollment in the Developmental Disabilities Program, the Department also considered a Multi-Disciplinary Team Report prepared by the Division of Student Services of the Miami-Dade County public school system. Mr. Davis was a student in the Miami-Dade County public school system's Exceptional Student Education program, which provides appropriate education for students with disabilities. The Multi-Disciplinary Team Report was part of a required re-evaluation performed by school personnel in order to determine Mr. Davis's psycho-educational status. The report is based on a re-evaluation of Mr. Davis conducted on March 25 and April 1, 1998, when he was 17 years of age and an 11th grade student at Coral Reef Senior High School. It is noted in the report that Mr. Davis "has been diagnosed with Aspergers Autism and Bipolar Disorder" and that he was first evaluated by the Dade County Public Schools in May 1987, at which time he had medical diagnoses "including Attention Deficit Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Affective Disorder Bipolar Type." The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Third Edition was administered to Mr. Davis during the 1998 re-evaluation. Mr. Davis obtained a Full Scale IQ of 100 on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, with a Verbal IQ of 110 and a Performance IQ of 89. The evaluator also noted in the Multi-Disciplinary Team Report that Mr. Davis "is capable of completing at least grade level academic work, yet his lack of attention and concentration often impede his progress. At present, his social skills remain underdeveloped." During his last two years in high school, Mr. Davis was classified as having the exceptionality of autism,2 and he was placed in a classroom for students with varying exceptionalities. The school system provided Mr. Davis with extensive and intensive services designed to assist him in making the transition from school to independent living and employment. The school system provided Mr. Davis with a one-on- one aide to work with him on his behavioral problems, and the school system's transition team worked with Mr. Davis to help him develop independent living skills. Mr. Davis has received training in computers and took courses at the Robert Morgan Vocation School in high-level computer programming. He graduated from Coral Reef Senior High School in June 1999. Although Mr. Davis was very successful in the program developed by the school system's transition team, he is now exhibiting some behavioral problems that he did not exhibit when he finished high school. He needs individualized support in order to live independently because his autistic tendencies are very strong, especially in the area of his behavior. Mr. Davis also needs services in the area of vocational training because his level of functioning is not yet high enough to permit him to seek employment. Mr. Davis has the potential to live independently and to be a productive member of society. He is, however, in need of community services in order to meet this potential. Mr. Davis applied to the state for vocational rehabilitation services but was denied these services because his IQ is too low.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying the application of Jeffrey Davis for enrollment in the Developmental Disabilities Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of September, 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Officer finds that the deficiencies exhibited as a teacher by Mrs. Price do not constitute good cause for removal from continuing contract in the absence of firm, positive, and consistent supervision designed to bring to Mrs. Price's attention the deficiencies in her teaching methods and the changes which she must make. The Hearing Officer therefore recommends that no action be taken until Mrs. Price has been given at least a full year of positive guidance designed to improve her teaching methods. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James W. Markel, Esquire Tom Jarrell, Esquire Post Office Box 1991 Orlando, Florida 32802 Howard W. Cooper, Esquire Post Office Box 1064 Winter Garden, Florida 32787
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d) or (g), Florida Statutes (2009)1/ and/or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with the certification and regulation of professional educators in the state of Florida, pursuant to the provisions of section 20.15 and the Florida K-20 Education Code, chapters 1000-1013, Florida Statutes (2009). Respondent, Deidra Juniper ("Respondent" or "Ms. Juniper"), holds Florida Educator's Certificate 317540, covering the area of elementary education, which is valid through June 30, 2016. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher at Yniestra Elementary School ("Yniestra") in the Escambia County School District. Yniestra was a Title I school. Since the events in this case, Yniestra has closed. During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent taught fifth grade. She had taught at Yniestra since 2000. At the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, Yniestra received a new principal, Dr. Sharee Cagle, following the retirement of the former principal, Nancy Reese. Dr. Cagle was also the principal for Hallmark Elementary School, serving in that capacity at both schools simultaneously. Shortly before the beginning of the school year, Respondent's adult son died unexpectedly. Dr. Cagle, along with other school district administrators, attended the wake for Respondent's son to offer their condolences. Although Dr. Cagle had attended a faculty meeting soon after her appointment was announced at the end of the preceding year, this was the first time that she and Respondent had met. Respondent believed she had a good relationship with Ms. Reece, and Ms. Reece's testimony was consistent with that belief. She generally had a reputation of being a good, professional, and knowledgeable teacher, with high standards for her students. She did not share the same rapport with Dr. Cagle. The 2009-2010 School Year Medication M.H. was a student in Respondent's fifth-grade class during the 2009-2010 school year. He made B's and C's in her class. M.H. claimed that Respondent told him that he needed to be on medication and that she called him dumb in front of the class. M.H. admitted that right before the alleged comment regarding the need for medication, he was standing at his seat as opposed to sitting, and liked to move around the class a lot. He did not recall her ever calling a student in the class stupid. Respondent denied asking M.H. if he was on medication or telling him that should be medicated. Respondent acknowledged that she spoke to M.H.'s mother during a parent conference about his behavior and asked whether he was on medication. Although M.H. was unsure why he was removed from Respondent's classroom, he was transferred to the other fifth-grade teacher (Ms. Sheater) at his mother's request. K.L. was also a student in Respondent's class. Generally, he was a B-to-D student who Respondent did not consider to be a discipline problem. K.L. was on medication that helped him with focus. One morning, K.L. failed to take his medication before leaving for school. K.L could not stay still that day and was not getting his work finished. K.L. testified that Respondent asked him why he was not finishing his work, and whether he had taken his medication that day. When he said no, she told him he should take his medication. No testimony was presented as to who else could hear the comments made to K.L. Respondent vaguely remembers an incident where K.L. was not doing his work and was talking instead, but does not recall telling K.L. that he should have taken his medication. Another student testified that on occasion, Ms. Juniper would make the statement that the students were "on medication or something" when they were noisy and disruptive as a class, and she was trying to get them to be quiet. The comments were directed to the class as a whole, however, and this student denied ever hearing Respondent tell an individual that he or she needed to be on medicine. Dr. Cagle testified that it would be inappropriate to tell an unfocused student who had already told her that he forgot to take his medication that he needed to do so. According to Dr. Cagle, it is not up to the teacher to determine whether taking meds is going to help him have a better day, and it is not appropriate to make a statement regarding medication in front of other children. After review of all of the evidence presented, the Commissioner presented clear and convincing evidence that Respondent told K.L. that he needed to take his medication on the day that he acknowledged he had not done so. It is not established by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was heard by other students. The other allegations regarding comments to students that they needed medication were not supported by clear convincing evidence. Belittling or Disparaging Remarks M.H. claimed that Respondent called him dumb in front of the class. He did not recall her ever calling a student in the class stupid. M.H. admitted that Respondent told the entire class that not doing their work was dumb, but insisted that she also made that statement about him individually. K.L. also testified that she called him dumb in front of the class. Another student, G.L., stated that she told a student on a single occasion that they needed to be on medication but could not identify the student and could not recall any of the circumstances related to the incident. No student indicated that they heard Respondent call a student crazy or retarded. While D.L. testified that Respondent told a student he or she was not going to sixth grade, she was unsure which student was involved. Other individuals, including students, parents, and staff, testified that they had never heard Respondent accuse a child of needing medication or call a student dumb, crazy, or retarded. Respondent denies ever making such statements. With respect to the statement about going to sixth grade, she testified credibly that the only time she would discuss a student's promotion to the next grade would be in the context of parent-child conferences, and not in front of other students. The evidence is not clear or convincing that Respondent called students crazy, dumb, or retarded. Clothing Yniestra, as a part of the Escambia County School District, had a dress code that prohibited clothing that could be considered disruptive. On one occasion, a female student in Respondent's class was wearing a t-shirt that depicted a vampire biting in the general vicinity of the student's breast. The t- shirt was covered by another shirt, but while the students in Respondent's class were in line in the hallway, the overshirt had come loose, exposing the t-shirt. Respondent found the t-shirt inappropriate, and noticed that the boys in the line were talking about it. Ms. Parker, the reading coach at Yniestra, was also in the hallway. Respondent asked Ms. Parker whether the shirt was inappropriate, and in Ms. Parker's view, Respondent was speaking about the shirt too loudly and where the class could hear her. Ms. Parker felt that Respondent was being confrontational toward the child and that if the shirt was a problem, the proper procedure was to send the student to the clinic, where the student could either secure something to wear over the shirt or arrange for other clothing. Ms. Juniper did not report the child or send her to the office, but she admits that she asked the child to cover the t- shirt. The child was never identified at hearing, and did not testify, so it cannot be determined whether the student felt singled out or embarrassed by the incident. On another occasion, Respondent commented upon T.I.'s pants which had a paint-splatter pattern on them. T.R., however, testified that Respondent told T.I. that her clothes were dirty, and when she did so T.I. was wearing cut-up jeans and a white t- shirt which was in fact dirty. T.I. did not testify. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent made inappropriate comments regarding students' clothing. Informal Conference On November 5, 2009, Dr. Cagle requested an informal conference with Respondent to discuss complaints that she had received regarding inappropriate comments to students, such as "you need medication"; "you need counseling, you are crazy"; and "you'll never make it to middle school." Dr. Cagle's notes from the conference indicate that Respondent admitted saying things "like this" but not in the way the statements reported. Dr. Cagle spoke with her about talking with students privately and appropriately. The documentation relates only the events from Dr. Cagle's point of view, with no written comments from Respondent. In February 2010, Dr. Cagle sent Respondent a memo indicating that discipline was being considered for several reports of inappropriate comments being made to students in front of the class, and for not following appropriate procedures. The reference to improper procedures apparently was in response to a report that on at least one occasion, Respondent sent a student to the office for discipline as opposed to having assistance sent to her classroom. The memo outlined strategies for improvement, and Ms. Juniper was given a copy of the Discipline Procedures from the Policy Book and a copy of a memorandum that outlined the steps for discipline. The Treatment of S.J. S.J. is by all accounts, a very bright child, and was at the head of her class. She was generally considered to be a model student. Respondent thought her to be a bright child, but believed she at times had an attitude problem. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent singled S.J. out for disparagement and told other students S.J. was a bad influence and was trying to get Respondent in trouble. The allegations regarding S.J. revolve around three incidents: a claim by Ms. Brees, the art teacher, that Respondent singled S.J. out for rebuke in the hallway; a claim by Ms. Brees that she reprimanded S.J. in the classroom when S.J. had done nothing wrong; and an incident where Respondent allegedly tore S.J.'s citizenship card. Ms. Brees was the art teacher at Yniestra, and taught there for six years. Her classroom is in a portable whereas Ms. Juniper's was on the second floor of the school building. Ms. Brees describes two incidents that led her to believe that Respondent had singled out S.J. for disparaging treatment. The first was an incident where students from Ms. Juniper's class were standing in line in the hallway. According to Ms. Brees, Respondent accused S.J. of talking and berated her for doing so, when S.J. was actually one of few students standing quietly in line. There was no testimony as to when this incident occurred, or how long Ms. Brees had been observing the conduct of the students. It is impossible to tell, from the evidence presented at hearing, whether S.J. may have been misbehaving before Ms. Brees observed her or whether Respondent in fact singled her out for rebuke. The second incident occurred at the end of art class on or about February 16, 2010, when Respondent went to pick up her students and escort them back to lunch. She and Ms. Brees were standing in the doorway to Ms. Brees' portable. According to Ms. Brees, she was standing in the open doorway, with her back against the frame of the door. Ms. Juniper was standing in the open doorway of the portable but was partially inside the classroom. While the students were waiting to line up to leave, Ms. Juniper testified that saw S.J. make a "smart face" at Ms. Brees and say something under her breath. She told S.J., "that is not appropriate. You are our valedictorian and should be an example to others." Ms. Brees testified that she did not see or hear S.J. do anything that needed correction. While Ms. Brees testified that she could see S.J. the whole time, and Ms. Juniper testified that Ms. Brees could not, from both women's descriptions, Ms. Juniper would have had a better view of the children and was closer to them in terms of hearing what was said. It is found that Respondent had a basis to correct S.J.'s behavior and did so. Ms. Brees acknowledged that there are times when a student can present behavioral issues for one teacher and not for others. Moreover, there was a prior incident to which Respondent testified she had observed Ms. Brees speaking to a student in what she believed to be an inappropriate manner, and had told Ms. Brees that she "couldn't say those things to a kid." Whether or not Ms. Brees acted inappropriately in the prior incident is not an issue in this case. However, Respondent's comment on Ms. Brees' behavior, whether or not warranted, may have had an effect on her attitude toward Respondent and her view of Respondent's behavior. In any event, after the incident in the portable, Ms. Brees wrote an e-mail to Ms. Cagle complaining about Respondent's treatment of S.J. The third incident involved the tearing of a citizenship card (also referred to as a conduct card. On or about March 8, 2010, Respondent was filling out a citizenship card for S.J. and S.J. asked her for it. Ms. Juniper was not finished writing on the card when S.J. reached for it, and the card tore as she took it. Although S.J. knew that Ms. Juniper had not torn the citizenship card, she told both her mother and Dr. Cagle that Respondent had ripped the citizenship card into pieces. She did not retract her statement until after the school year ended and never told Dr. Cagle that her accusation was not true. After the incident with the conduct card, S.J. started keeping a log of things that Respondent did or said that she felt were improper. Shortly thereafter, on March 12, 2010, Dr. Cagle issued an e-mail to Respondent and to Ms. Sheater, stating: "[S.J.] will be moved to Mrs. Sheater's class effective Monday, March 15, 2010. This is at the mother's request and I believe it will be the best for all parties involved." At the time Dr. Cagle made the decision to transfer S.J., she had both the e-mail from Ms. Brees and a complaint from S.J.'s mother in response to the alleged incident with the conduct card. Transferring the child to another classroom under these circumstances was reasonable. However, the question remains what would cause S.J. to pull the conduct card from Respondent's hand in the first place, and then lie about the incident to both her mother and to Dr. Cagle. It is implausible that a model child with absolutely no discipline or attitude problems would attempt to snatch something out of her teacher's hand to the point of tearing it. The circumstances related to the torn citizenship card lend credence to Respondent's testimony that she was recording on the card that S.J. had been disrespectful and belligerent in class that day, and that the citizenship card would reflect that information. Contrary to Ms. Brees' testimony, the guidance counselor, Ms. McGowen, testified that she had been in Ms. Juniper's classroom and that her interaction with students was appropriate. She did not believe that Respondent singled out S.J. for disparagement. She testified that Respondent had actually come to her about S.J., stating that S.J. may need to talk to Ms. McGowen about some personal problems away from school. Respondent testified that she had suggested to S.J.'s mother that she go to guidance. Given this testimony, it is plausible that, for whatever reason, S.J. resented Respondent and/or did not behave as well in her classroom as she did elsewhere. Whether or not that is the case, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent singled her out for disparagement. The Code Yellow On or about April 5, 2010, a lockdown was initiated at Yniestra. Lockdowns could be a code yellow or a code red. A code yellow indicates that there is someone around the premises or in the nearby community that could be or cause danger. In that circumstance, a teacher was to account for all of the students in her class, and if accounted for, place a green sheet of paper in the door, lock it, and continue instruction quietly. A code red indicated that someone has broken into the building. The same procedures are followed as for a code yellow, except that students and staff are to remain silent and stay away from windows and doors. The lockdown on April 5, 2010, was extremely long. Initially, all of the students in Respondent's class were at a reading table in the back of the classroom. As the lockdown continued, however, the students became restless and were talking. Some of them were under the table, laughing, cutting up, and banging their heads. Respondent instructed them to be quiet, but to no avail. Ms. Juniper called the front office to find out why the lockdown was taking so long, and no one answered. She then called Ann Choat, a curriculum coordinator for the 2009/2010 school year at Yniestra, to ask what was going on, and told Ms. Choat that she had called the office and could not get anyone. Ms. Choat confirmed at hearing that she had received the call and testified as to the contents of the conversation, yet none of the students remembered whether Ms. Juniper used the telephone during the lockdown. This is significant because it indicates to the undersigned that the students were paying more attention to their own conversations, which they were not supposed to be having, than to what Ms. Juniper was doing or saying. D.L. was one of the students who was laughing with her friends. When the students did not follow her directions to be quiet, Ms. Juniper moved her away from the other students to a spot along the wall under the windows, on the same side of the room as the door. Her head was not above the windows and she could not be seen from outside the room. At least one other student was also moved in order to get the students to be quiet. D.L. testified that she did not like being moved, and told Respondent that if someone was outside, they could see her and shoot her. D.L. testified that Respondent said she hoped the person would come in and shoot them. Respondent adamantly denies making such a statement, and testified that she responded to D.L. by saying "I hope you aren't shot, but if you keep talking like that, I couldn't stop one from coming through this door." The testimony from other students regarding this incident was varied. Some testified that it was a code red, while others testified it was a code yellow. Students remembered other students being moved from the back of the room, but could not remember who or how many were moved or the location to which they were moved. They could not remember whether D.L. was talking to Respondent before Respondent's comment, and if they could remember, did not recall what D.L. said. All remember some version of Ms. Juniper saying she hoped that those who were talking got shot. Given the level of noise in the room and the inability to remember other details about the lockdown, it is just as likely (and more plausible) that Ms. Juniper said "I hope you aren't shot" as opposed to saying "I hope you are shot." Dr. Cagle acknowledged that children sometimes relate what they thought they heard rather than what was actually said. It is farfetched to believe that these students, who were holding their own conversations and could not identify with certainly any of the details surrounding the lockdown, suddenly heard with crystal clarity exactly what Ms. Juniper said. In any event, the evidence does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence that she told her students she hoped they were shot. Whether or not she actually made the statement, it is clear that D.L. believed that she did. She became very upset and once the lockdown was over, Respondent sent her to Ms. Sheater, the other fifth-grade teacher, so that she could take a few moments and calm herself down. While in Ms. Sheater's room, she relayed her version of the events to Ms. Sheater, who instructed D.L. to write down what happened, and called Ms. Parker, the reading coach. Ms. Parker had D.L. come to her room and tell her what happened. D.L. was visibly upset. Ms. Parker spoke to another, unidentified student in the hall who was in Ms. Juniper's class, who verified D.L.'s story. She then called Dr. Cagle and to report the incident. Discipline by the School District Dr. Cagle spoke to D.L. and then spoke to the other children in the classroom. As a result of her investigation, the district office was notified of the incident, and Ms. Juniper was immediately placed on suspension with pay while the incident was investigated by the district. After the district's investigation, on May 12, 2010, Respondent received a letter of reprimand "for use of abusive, rude or inappropriate communication both to, and in front of, students and other employees at Yniestra Elementary School." She was required to attend the staff development training titled "What is it about me you can't teach?" and to meet regularly with her principal to discuss any and all concerns regarding her students. Participation in the Employee Assistance Program was suggested but not required. Respondent grieved the reprimand through the district's process for doing so. Consistent with the notice provided in the reprimand, Responded prepared a written response which stated in part: As a 36 year veteran teacher, I have spent the last ten years at Yniestra Elementary. I have received commendations from students, parent and administrators throughout my career. I have always conducted myself in a professional manner, keeping the best interests of my students in my mind. I am cognizant of their individual differences, respectful of their feelings, and doing my best to meet their needs. Your letter stated that it was given to me because of my professional demeanor was determined to be inappropriate. Incidents that occurred during the 2009-2010 year were interpreted to portray me in a negative light and to shed doubts on my professionalism. I believe the District's decision to discipline me is based on information obtained from biased and shoddy investigations, giving undue weight to statements made by students known to have discipline issues in my and other classrooms. This led to a faulty conclusion, casting me in a negative light. . . . The 2010-2011 School Year A. Abusive Statements Dr. Cagle changed Respondent's teaching assignment for the 2010-2011 school year from the fifth grade to the second grade. She testified that she believed there would be fewer disciplinary challenges in a second-grade setting because children generally love their teachers at that age and are generally easier to manage. In her view, it was a better match for Respondent. She acknowledges that there were fewer issues in this school year. Dr. Cagle testified that while there were fewer issues, at least three or more students complained to her that Respondent made derogatory comments to them or put her hands on them when she was angry. On October 22, 2010, she sent a memorandum to Respondent directing her to come to the office and discuss allegations that she made inappropriate comments in class and engaged in inappropriate touching of students. Although the memorandum indicated that documentation gathered regarding these issues was attached, no such documentation was entered into evidence. Further, no student testified that inappropriate statements were made to them or that Respondent touched them inappropriately. Dr. Cagle could not name any of the students that she states complained to her. Clear and convincing evidence was not presented to support the allegation that Respondent made disparaging or inappropriate remarks to students. The only evidence to support the allegation regarding inappropriate touching involved an incident with K.S., which is discussed below. The Bathroom Incident Judy LaBounty, was a curriculum coordinator for Yniestra and Hallmark Elementary Schools during the 2010-2011 school year. She testified that on or about October 15, 2010, she was standing in the hallway of the school and saw Ms. Juniper and her class as the girls were going to use the restroom. According to policies instituted by Dr. Cagle, students and staff were not supposed to talk in the hallways. She said that it appeared that Respondent was upset or angry, and she called a student from the restroom to the door. When the student appeared, she took her by the arm above the elbow, pulled her over to the wall and leaned over to speak to her. Ms. LaBounty stated that she was about ten yards from her and could not hear her, but from both people's body language, she was reprimanding the student in an angry tone. Ms. LaBounty did not know why Ms. Juniper was reprimanding the child, whom she could not identify by name, but simply knew she was trying to get the child to leave the restroom. She notified Dr. Cagle of the incident because Respondent had put her hand on a student. The student involved in this incident was K.S., an energetic and bright young girl. On this particular occasion, K.S. said another child was "messing with me" in the bathroom, so she jumped on the other girl's back. The other child came out of the bathroom with tears in her eyes. When Ms. Juniper asked her what was wrong, she relayed that K.S. had jumped on her. Ms. Juniper called to K.S. to come out of the bathroom and had to call more than once. When she came out, according to K.S., Ms. Juniper "gently pulled me out of the bathroom and she just talked to me about it." Ms. Juniper's testimony is consistent with K.S.'s, and Respondent admits taking K.S. by the arm as she exited the bathroom. Both Ms. LaBounty and Dr. Cagle stated that it is against Escambia County School District policy to lay a hand on a child. However, no copy of any policy was placed into evidence, and without the policy in evidence, no analysis of its parameters can be made. In any event, from the evidence and the demeanor of the witnesses, it does not appear that there was any attempt by Respondent to yank on K.S.'s arm, engage in corporal punishment, or to hurt K.S. in any way. Birthday Licks M.W. is a special education student in the extended services program for the Escambia County School District. At the time of the incident he was approximately 19 years old, and worked as a volunteer at Yniestra. He is described as a good worker with limited academic skills. February 22, 2010, was M.W.'s birthday, and consistent with school custom, he was wearing a birthday ribbon. The students in Ms. Juniper's class wanted to make him a birthday card, and Ms. Juniper gave them permission to do so. When M.W. went into Ms. Juniper's classroom that day, one of the children asked to sing "happy birthday," and they did. After singing to him, someone suggested that the students give him "birthday licks." While the testimony is in dispute as to whether Respondent suggested the licks or simply acquiesced to them, it is clear that she allowed at least two of the students in the class to hit M.W. on either his buttocks or his lower back, and at least one child hit him hard. M.W. was uncomfortable with the process and told Ms. Juniper that "this was not a good idea." At some point, Dr. Cagle walked into the room and witnessed the children giving M.W. birthday licks. She immediately told Ms. Juniper that it was not appropriate, and had M.W. leave with her. Dr. Cagle had M.W. visit the clinic where he was examined for any injuries caused by the licks. None were noted. However, M.W. was embarrassed by the incident and felt he was in trouble for it. Respondent did not think anything of having the children give M.W. birthday licks, because during the many years that she taught for the Department of Defense schools overseas, giving birthday licks was routine. However, Respondent had been in the Escambia County School District for several years, and should have known that it was not part of the culture in this setting. Moreover, having second graders give licks to a much older special needs student was clearly inappropriate. Later in the day, Respondent took the card her class had made to M.W., and he was still upset. She was then called to the office and told to pack her things because she was being suspended. She told Dr. Cagle that the incident was her fault and she would take the blame for it. Respondent was placed on suspension with pay during the investigation of the incident. Ultimately, she was suspended without pay for two days, beginning Wednesday, April 20, 2011, as discipline for the incident. The Relationship Between Dr. Cagle and Respondent Evidence was presented at hearing regarding the changes at Yniestra once Dr. Cagle became principal, for the purpose of showing bias or prejudice concerning Dr. Cagle's testimony.3/ Dr. Cagle did not know Respondent before she became principal, and before that time her contact with Respondent was limited. However, it is clear that Dr. Cagle's management style was very different from that of her predecessor, Nancy Reese. This proceeding is not the place to determine which, if either, style is or was more effective, but it is clear from the testimony that not all teachers who had taught under Ms. Reece were thrilled with the changes. Several testified that they were removed from committee assignments and did not feel that their contributions were respected by the new leadership. Several transferred or retired rather than stay at Yniestra. Yniestra was scheduled to close after the 2010-2011 school year, and Dr. Cagle was to stay on and serve as principal for the Global Learning Academy, an elementary school that would open in the same location as Yniestra. From the totality of the evidence, it appeared that Dr. Cagle was "cleaning house" in terms of staff. While there is no question that some of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint in fact occurred, it also appears that Dr. Cagle was motivated to remove Respondent from her position. As Ms. McGowen stated, she did not believe Respondent could please Dr. Cagle. For example, on June 23, 2011, Dr. Cagle wrote to the Department of Education about Respondent's performance. At hearing, Dr. Cagle indicated that she wrote the letter at the request of an investigator at the Department of Education. The letter, however, makes no reference to a pending investigation and makes several statements that are inconsistent with the other evidence presented at hearing. For example, the first bullet point states that: Ms. Juniper is emotionally unstable. She lost her son unexpectedly right before school starts. She cries often and for long periods of time. She talks about his death daily to her class. She talks endlessly to anyone who will listen about him. I encourage her to go to counseling but she says she does not need to go. Dr. Cagle acknowledged at hearing that she is not qualified to determine emotional instability, and no fitness-for- duty evaluation was ever requested. No other staff member from Yniestra testified that Respondent was mentally unstable. To the contrary, Linda Mashon (who retired in September 2010), Uadona Lobley (who transferred after the 2009-2010 school year), Holli Herron (who transferred after the 2010-2011 school year), Jennifer Kemp (who transferred after the 2009-2010 school year), and Ann Choat (who retired after the 2009-2010 school year) uniformly described Respondent as having a reputation of being a professional who worked well with her students and, notwithstanding the loss of her son, none of them considered her to be unstable. Dr. Cagle's letter identified several inflammatory statements that she attributed to Respondent, some of which were alleged in the Administrative Complaint and some of which were not. Although this letter is supposed to be part of an investigation into Respondent's behavior, she gives no specifics as to the identity of the students to whom these statements were made, who reported them, or when they were made in order for the Department to investigate. The letter states that "eight parents requested that their child be placed in another class the year [sic]." At hearing, she testified specifically about a request from D.V. that her daughter not be placed in Respondent's class: Q. And can you tell us the reasons why these parents asked that their child be removed from Ms. Juniper's class? A. The first request came before the first day of school. It came from a parent, Ms. V. Q. What is Ms. V's first name? A. D.V. That her daughter not be placed in Ms. Juniper's class. That she had past experience with Ms. Juniper. I believe her words were, the lady is crazy, I don't want my daughter in that classroom. And I put her in Ms. Sheater's classroom before school started. The other incidences, the other students that were moved were for various reasons. It was typically the result of a situation that occurred between Ms. Juniper and their child and that they wanted another teacher. When she was asked on cross-examination whether the placement request could have been because Respondent and D.V. were friends and Respondent had known the child for years, Dr. Cagle stated that was not what was told to her and she had no knowledge of their friendship. D.V. was the only parent that testified at hearing whose child was reassigned. D.V.'s testimony, however, directly contradicted that of Dr. Cagle. She credibly testified that she met with Dr. Cagle as she has met with the principal each year with respect to her child's placement. According to D.V., her daughter, J.V., is adopted and has bipolar disorder. She is strong willed and can be manipulative. She flatly denied telling Dr. Cagle that she did not want J.V. in Respondent's class because Respondent was crazy: to the contrary, she did not want her placed in Respondent's class because J.V. and Ms. Juniper knew each other too well, and D.V. felt that her daughter would "make a run on Deidra, play on her, on our relationship." She denied ever thinking that Respondent was unstable and denied telling either Dr. Cagle or Ms. Parker that Respondent was crazy. Finally, the letter states that the former principal "said she felt sorry for her because of her divorce and did not take enough action but encouraged her to go to counseling." However, Nancy Reece's testimony at hearing is inconsistent with such a statement. Ms. Reece testified that Respondent was a very professional teacher who stayed on task and exhibited good quality teaching. The testimony and other evidence presented convinces the undersigned that for whatever reason, Dr. Cagle was willing to believe the worst of Respondent and not likely to give her the benefit of the doubt should a complaint arise. To be sure, there is at least one incident of inappropriate behavior that has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. However, Respondent is not the unstable, out-of-control disaster that Dr. Cagle clearly believes her to be. Dr. McDonald's Evaluation For mitigation purposes, Respondent was evaluated by Dr. Randi McDonald to obtain a current psychological evaluation in order to determine the presence of mental health issues that impair her ability to continue working as an elementary school teacher. Dr. McDonald is a forensic psychologist with a doctorate degree in psychology. She has been licensed in Florida since 2009. Dr. McDonald conducted a forensic evaluation which included the administration of psychological tests, interviews with Respondent, and review of the Department of Education file. She ultimately opined that Respondent does not suffer from any significant psychiatric issue which would affect her ability to teach. She did, however, stated that the testing revealed that Respondent does not want to admit to even minor shortcomings and faults that most people have, and that her "underreporting" was consistent with her very traditional background. Dr. McDonald stated that Respondent has difficulty seeing weaknesses because they "just don't register in how she defines herself." As stated in her report, It is this evaluator's clinical impression that Ms. Juniper is perfectionistic and somewhat over-controlled in her general approach to life and her interactions with others. These qualities can be quite positive, in that they likely contribute to excellent organizational skills and leadership capacity and have most certainly played a part in her success as a teacher over the years. On the other hand, these qualities can make her less amenable to change at times. . . . Dr. McDonald's evaluation is consistent with Respondent's demeanor and responses at hearing. Several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint were not proven by clear and convincing evidence, and in some instances, a change of phrase makes a great deal of difference in how behavior is perceived. The evidence as to some alleged events was simply not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard. However, even in those instances where Respondent essentially admitted to the behavior at issue, she tended to minimize her role in the negative result.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Nathaniel Morrow has an extensive history of disruptive behavior committed within the school system beginning in September of 1981, when the Respondent was in the seventh grade at Palmetto Junior High School. His problems have included numerous fights, continuously disrupting classes, refusing to serve detentions, using inappropriate language, wrestling in the hall and inappropriately touching a female student. Following numerous parental conferences and further attempts at discipline, the Respondent was informed that his next offense would result in a recommendation of alternative school placement. The Respondent's negative behavior reached a peak on June 9, 1983, when he attempted to extort fifty cents from another student during a physical education class. The student refused and his shirt was torn. When the Respondent objected to paying for the damage to the shirt, a fight ensued during which the student was beaten and thrown to the floor by the Respondent. A physical education teacher witnessed the fight and pulled the Respondent away from the student. Following this incident, a recommendation wad made to transfer the Respondent to J.R.E. Lee, the Youth Opportunity School South, due to his disruption of the educational process in the regular school and his failure to adjust to the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning Nathaniel Morrow to its opportunity school. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Handfield, Esquire McCRARY VALENTINE & HANDFIELD Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. & Mrs. Morrow 17150 Southwest 105 Avenue Miami, Florida 33157 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should revoke Respondent’s license to operate a child care facility.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers that are licensed or registered to provide child care in the state of Florida. See § 402.305(1), Fla. Stat. Ms. Wright is the owner and operator of Little Learners. On January 9, 2017, Ms. Wright completed, signed, and submitted an application to the Department for Little Learners to operate as a child care facility in the state of Florida. Section E of the application is entitled “On-Site Director Information.” Section E instructs the applicant to identify the director of the child care facility. Section E further states that, “An On-site Director holds a Director Credential and is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the facility and is required to be on-site the majority of operating hours.” On her application, Ms. Wright wrote in the name of Shavol Spaulding as the director for Little Learners. Just above the applicant signature line, the application states: Falsification of application information is grounds for denial or revocation of the license to operate a child care facility. Your signature on this application indicates your understanding and compliance with this law. Based on the information contained in the application, the Department determined that Little Learners met all the requirements necessary to receive a license to operate a child care facility. Therefore, in January 2017, the Department issued a license to Little Learners. However, in or about May 2017, the Department received information that Ms. Spaulding never worked for Little Learners as its on-site director. Consequently, in June 2017, the Department initiated this action to revoke the license it issued to Little Learners in January 2017. The Department alleges that Ms. Wright misrepresented on the application that Little Learners had hired Ms. Spaulding to serve as its director. At the final hearing, the Department presented Christina Bryant, its Childcare Regulations Supervisor. In her role, Ms. Bryant reviews child care license applications. Ms. Bryant testified that in order for a child care facility to receive a license from the Department, the facility must employ a credentialed, on-site director.4 A director with the appropriate credentials assures the Department that someone who is trained in the required child care standards is overseeing the facility. Requiring the director to remain “on-site the majority of operating hours” ensures that the facility will provide the safest environment for the children who attend. The Department will not issue a license to a facility that does not identify a director or indicates that the director position is pending. Ms. Bryant relayed that around May 2017, the Department received a report from the Early Learning Coalition that Ms. Spaulding was not the director of Little Learners. Subsequently, on May 15, 2017, the Department obtained a letter signed by Ms. Spaulding confirming this fact. As a result, Ms. Bryant initiated an investigation to determine whether the Department appropriately issued a child care license to Little Learners. In the course of her investigation, Ms. Bryant contacted Ms. Wright. Ms. Wright expressed to Ms. Bryant that Ms. Spaulding was the director of her facility. However, Ms. Wright was not able to provide any documentation to Ms. Bryant verifying Ms. Spaulding’s employment as Little Learners’ director, such as personnel records, time sheets, or sign-in sheets. Consequently, Ms. Bryant concluded that Ms. Spaulding was not, in fact, the director of Little Learners. Ms. Bryant later learned that Ms. Spaulding was actually employed as the director of another child care facility. Ms. Bryant asserted that a credentialed child care director is required to be present at a single facility during a majority of the operating hours. Consequently, a director is not permitted to serve in such a capacity at more than one facility. Ms. Bryant conveyed that, rather than immediately initiating an action to revoke Petitioner’s license, the Department elected to allow Ms. Wright additional time to hire a director. Therefore, on May 19, 2017, the Department issued Little Learners a six-month, provisional license.5/ During this time period, Little Learners was allowed to operate without a designated director. Whitney Ricks, a Family Services Counselor, also testified for the Department. As part of her responsibilities, Ms. Ricks inspected the Little Learners facility in January and April 2017. Ms. Ricks reported that she met with Ms. Wright during both inspections. However, she never observed nor saw Ms. Spaulding at the facility. Ms. Ricks commented that Ms. Wright specifically represented to her that Ms. Spaulding did work at Little Learners, but was not present at the time of either inspection. Ms. Spaulding testified at the final hearing. Ms. Spaulding declared that she has never served as the director for Little Learners. Ms. Spaulding explained that, in October 2016, she applied for a director position with Ms. Wright. However, she never heard back regarding the job after her interview. Consequently, she never worked for Little Learners in any capacity. Ms. Spaulding confirmed that she wrote a statement in May 2017 informing the Department that she was not the director of Little Learners. Ms. Spaulding also stated that she currently works as the director of another child care facility, and did so on January 9, 2017, as well. Ms. Spaulding represented that she holds the required credentials to work as a child care director. She repeated Ms. Bryant’s testimony that a child care facility is required to employ a credentialed, on-site director in order to obtain a license to operate in the state of Florida. Ms. Spaulding also acknowledged that a child care director may only be employed by one facility at a time. Ms. Wright testified on behalf of Little Learners. Ms. Wright purchased the Little Learners center in October 2015. She was new to the child care business and has had to learn how to operate her facility as she gained experience. Ms. Wright insisted that, contrary to Ms. Spaulding’s testimony, she did hire her as Little Learners’ director. Ms. Wright further declared that she believed that Ms. Spaulding was serving as Little Learners’ director on January 9, 2017, when she applied for a child care license. Ms. Wright claimed that she did not find out that Ms. Spaulding was not working for Little Learners until three days after she submitted her application. It was then that the Early Learning Coalition notified her that Ms. Spaulding was employed as the director of another facility. Ms. Wright stated that she asked Ms. Spaulding to serve as Little Learners’ director within weeks after she opened Little Learners in October 2015.6/ Ms. Wright expressed that Ms. Spaulding started working for Little Learners shortly thereafter, and she saw Ms. Spaulding at her facility every day. Ms. Wright also asserted that Ms. Spaulding never told her that she was working for another child care facility. Ms. Wright further testified that she paid Ms. Spaulding $300 in cash every week since October 2015 for her director services. However, Ms. Wright did not retain (or produce for the Department) any employee documents, bank statements, pay stubs, tax forms, or other written records supporting her claim that Ms. Spaulding worked for Little Learners at any time between 2015-2017. Ms. Wright relayed that, after the Department contacted her, she confronted Ms. Spaulding about her work status. Ms. Wright attested that Ms. Spaulding apologized to her and told her that she had been caught working as the director of another child care business. Ms. Wright claimed that Ms. Spaulding offered to repay the money Ms. Wright had given her. Ms. Wright turned down Ms. Spaulding’s proposal because she did not believe that Ms. Spaulding could pay her back. Ms. Wright revealed that currently Little Learners has no director, no children to care for, and is essentially no longer operating. Ms. Wright explained that she attempted to hire another person as Little Learners’ director during the time she held the provisional license, but the person she sought out did not accept the job. In its Administrative Complaint, the Department alleges that Ms. Wright misrepresented the qualifications or credentials of Little Learner’s child care personnel (i.e., that Little Learners employed a director named Shavol Spaulding). The Department categorized Ms. Wright’s action as a Class I violation of section 402.319(1)(f)3. The Department seeks to revoke the license it issued to Little Learners in January 2017, as well as fine Little Learners in the amount of $500. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the record establishes that Ms. Wright misrepresented the fact that Little Learners had a credentialed, on-site director on the date she submitted her application to the Department. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Little Learners’ application for a child care license should be revoked under section 402.319.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order revoking Respondent’s license to operate a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to sanction Respondent, Diana O'Neill (hereinafter "O'Neill"), for violation of Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules governing the conduct of teachers in the State of Florida, and, if so, what sanction(s) should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for overseeing all teachers and staff members of public schools in the State of Florida. It is the duty and responsibility of the Department to ensure that all teachers follow the rules of professionalism and conduct set forth in the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. The Department issues a teaching certificate to each instructor employed by a school and has the right to sanction teachers for wrongdoing. Sanctions may include revocation of the teaching certificate. At all times relevant hereto, O'Neill was employed by the School as a teacher for severely and profoundly mentally handicapped children. During the School Year, O'Neill had five or six students in her classroom. Relevant to the discussions herein, three of those students are identified as O., A., and T. O'Neill has a master's degree in curriculum and instruction, a bachelor's degree in science and education, and a certification in elementary and special education. She has been certified as a teacher in Florida for over 21 years. She was hired by the School in 1990 and taught mentally handicapped children there without interruption until January 29, 2008. In all the years O'Neill taught at the School, she received only superior evaluations and had never been subject to discipline. During the School Year, however, there were a number of complaints made against O'Neill by her classroom teacher's aides that resulted in O'Neill's suspension and removal from the classroom. Those allegations form the basis of the Department's decision to impose sanctions against O'Neill. The Students O. was seven years old during the School Year. At ten weeks of age, O. had been diagnosed with a genetic heart disorder which necessitated open-heart surgery. As a result, O. is developmentally delayed and has severe hearing loss and some negative vision issues. O. understands some of the things going on around her to a limited degree. She says only one word, "Go," and cannot generally communicate with others. She laughs at certain things, feels pain, and is only slightly ambulatory. O. is not toilet-trained and has no sense of danger or awareness of potential harm around her. A. was eight years old during the School Year. He has an atypical type of Downs Syndrome, i.e., while he does not have the physical appearance of a Downs Syndrome child, he does have the low muscle tone. A. was only beginning to learn to walk during the School Year, but he could see and hear well. He is not toilet-trained and needs assistance with all aspects of his daily activities. When he began walking, A. utilized a standard walker, then graduated to a pull-behind walker that helped him stand more upright. When A. would tire of walking, he would simply drop to the ground wherever he was at that moment. Due to some gastro-intestinal problems, A. had a G-Tube port surgically inserted in his stomach. The G-Tube port must be cared for in order to prevent infection. T. is a profoundly mentally handicapped girl, who was 11 years old during the School Year. She has a condition called hemimegalencephaly and experiences seizures. T. has only minimal vision and cannot walk or talk. She can hear sounds and directions and is able to move her hands and arms. When she was very young, T. underwent an operation called a hemispherectomy that resulted in a row of stitches across her entire skull. The area around the stitches is very sensitive, and T. dislikes having her head touched for any reason. During the School Year, T. was placed in a device called a "Stander" that allowed her to stand upright for limited periods of time. She seemed to like the Stander and her parents approved of it, but that device is no longer used at the School. Due to the extensive nature of her condition, all therapies for T. have been discontinued. The Classroom O'Neill's classroom during the School Year was set up so that she could deal with the various issues confronting severely mentally and physically handicapped children. The classroom contained restrooms for toileting the children and various equipment and furnishings to assist in their educational training. The primary focus for O'Neill was to develop as much independent functioning for the students as possible based upon their individual abilities. None of the students in O'Neill's classroom was able to understand even rudimentary academic work, so the focus was on various daily living needs. There were two teacher's aides in the classroom during the School Year: Cooke and Anderson. Cooke was basically trained as an aide, beginning with her first position in 2004. She attended college for three years, but did not graduate. She also worked with O'Neill during the 2006-2007 school year, i.e., the year immediately prior to the period at issue in this proceeding. Anderson had previously worked in O'Neill's classroom in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years. Anderson worked at a different school in the 2006-2007 school year. When Anderson elected to return to the School in 2007, O'Neill (who was the union representative at the School), provided her with some assistance. The degree or kind of assistance is disputed, but it is clear that O'Neill did not object to Anderson returning as her aide. Both aides in O'Neill's class respected her and believed she knew how to teach mentally handicapped children. Both admitted learning a lot from O'Neill. The aides, however, were somewhat intimidated by O'Neill, ostensibly due to O'Neill's status as a union representative. There does not appear to have been any social interaction between O'Neill and the aides outside of the school setting. It was the duty of the aides to assist O'Neill in the classroom. O'Neill gave them certain tasks and expected the aides to perform them independently and effectively. O'Neill created a kind of calendar setting forth each aide's duties on a weekly or monthly basis. The aides would perform many of the same tasks done by O'Neill, and there appears to have been a generally amiable relationship between the women during the first part of the School Year. In addition to the aides, there were other adult visitors to the classroom. One of the students had personal nurses who would come into the classroom on a regular basis to care for the child. Physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech and language pathologists, and other teachers, as well as the School principal would be in the classroom at any given time. The room itself had two doors, one that opened up to the hallway and one that connected the classroom with a large therapy room. Neither of the doors was kept locked on a regular basis, but sometimes the door to the hallway would be locked if someone forgot to physically unlock it in the morning. There was a window out to the hallway, but that window was covered up with equipment and the blinds closed at all times. O'Neill's Actions In the first half of October 2007, during the School Year, O'Neill decided to attempt the use of a gait belt on A., based on A.'s actions. He would often refuse to cooperate when moving from the classroom to another room, he would sometimes wander off, and he would often just sit down wherever he was. A gait belt is a strap that can be secured around the torso of an individual and used as a means of assisting the person when they are walking. Gait belts are used on physically handicapped individuals, the elderly, and children. A. had become less cooperative as he became more ambulatory, and he would often attempt to elope instead of returning to the classroom. O'Neill believed that a gait belt would be helpful in this regard. One day as the lunch period was ending and the class was preparing to return to the classroom, O'Neill wrapped the gait belt around A., just below his armpits. She did not put the belt lower, because she was being careful to avoid A.'s G-Tube site. As she held the door open for other children, she felt A. starting to slip away and held the belt taut so as to keep him from eloping. At this point, the descriptions of the event differ greatly between O'Neill and the aides. O'Neill says she felt the belt get taut, then looked down and saw that A. had lifted his feet off the ground by bending his knees. She then lowered him to the ground and directed him to stand. At the same time, she lifted up on the belt to assist him with rising up. Once he was off the ground, however, he refused to unbend his knees, and she was essentially holding him up in the air again. She lowered the belt and again ordered A. to stand up. She raised him up a third time, but he still would not cooperate. Frustrated, she removed the belt and got A. to return to the classroom by manually picking him up every time he dropped to the ground. Cooke remembers A. being placed in the gait belt. As O'Neill had said, A. was not being cooperative. However, in response to him falling to the ground, O'Neill began to yank the belt--and A.--up and down like a yo-yo, yelling at A. the entire time. The situation made Cooke very uneasy, and she thought O'Neill's actions were improper. Anderson remembers O'Neill warning A. that if he did not begin to walk back to the classroom, she (O'Neill) would get the gait belt. A. would sit, O'Neill would "boot him in the bottom," and he would only move a little. So, O'Neill eventually got out the gait belt and put it on A. She then started yanking A. up and down by the belt "like a yo-yo." Anderson told O'Neill to stop because she believed O'Neill's actions were improper. O'Neill laughed at Anderson, but she also stopped yanking on A. There was some evidence of abrasions or bruises on A. at about the time of the incident, but the testimony was insufficient to prove that the marks were caused by the gait belt. The testimony of the two aides is more credible based upon their corroboration of each other, their absence of pecuniary interest in the matter, and their demeanor. This is not to say that O'Neill does not remember the event exactly as she described it, only that the description provided by the aides seems more believable in consideration of all the testimony. During the School Year, O'Neill began to strike the students with various objects, e.g., a water bottle wrapped in a koozie, a tennis ball sleeve wrapped in carpet, a small catalogue or magazine, and a cardboard sign covered with a piece of carpet. O'Neill referred to the striking as a "bop" on the head or arm, done lightly and solely for the purpose of getting the child's attention or playing with them. Again, the aides' perception differs. They remember the strikes to be much heavier in nature, done in anger or frustration. There is no way to ascertain with any degree of certainty as to how O'Neill used the objects on the students. T. had one physical condition that is of significance to this matter. Due to her physical development, T.'s bottom lip would often become dry and flaky. It was necessary to keep ointment on her lip and to carefully cut off the dried skin at times. T.'s grandmother would often come to the school and take care of that task. On at least one occasion, but likely more than once, O'Neill pulled the dried skin off T.'s lip, rather than remove it with scissors. O'Neill admits to pulling the skin off during a school year prior to the year at issue. She says it was done because she did not want T. to go out in public with an aesthetically displeasing appearance. Cooke, however, remembers numerous instances during the School Year in which O'Neill would "yank [the skin] right off her mouth." T. would utter a cry of pain, and O'Neill would simply laugh as if it were a funny thing she had done. Cooke said T.'s mouth would bleed when this happened, but T.'s mother did not testify as to whether she saw evidence of bleeding when T. came back from school. O'Neill would also be somewhat caustic in her comments about the students. She often referred to O. as "Oblivia" and said T. was "just sitting there, using up oxygen" (or something to that effect). When an aide raised questions about striking the children with objects, O'Neill said something akin to, "So what, am I going to cause them brain damage?" O'Neill admits that her language was sometimes curt and that she used dark humor in order to deal with a very stressful job. She denies ever saying anything meant to harm or demean the students she taught. O'Neill struck one student, T., on one occasion, although the exact nature of the event is disputed. One day while attempting to instruct T. how to distinguish between food and drink, O'Neill got frustrated. Despite O'Neill's best efforts, T. would not cooperate by selecting the appropriate picture placed in front of her. After numerous attempts, O'Neill finally gave up and brushed her hand against T.'s head. O'Neill described the action as a soft brushing of T.'s hair; the aides remember it differently. They describe O'Neill actually hitting T. with a backhand motion, striking her with sufficient force to make T.'s head move suddenly. The aides saw that event as egregious enough to report immediately and went straight to the principal's office. The aides' reporting of the incident with T. was, in their view, necessary in order to prevent O'Neill from further inappropriate behavior. While they had been reticent to report O'Neill earlier because she was a union representative and held some degree of authority over them, they finally had seen too much. The aides had reported O'Neill's behavior to the school nurse earlier. After that report, O'Neill stopped her questionable behaviors for a while. The behaviors returned however, and apparently got worse. In response to the report, the principal placed O'Neill on administrative leave pending an investigation. She had been aware of prior alleged incidents involving O'Neill, but did not take any action at that time as it appeared the situation had been resolved by the aides' reporting to the nurse. However, the latest incident, an alleged assault on a student, required immediate action. As a result of her investigation, the principal then withdrew O'Neill permanently from the classroom. O'Neill has a long history of working with mentally handicapped students. She started work in this area while still a high school student and became enamored with the subject from the beginning. In addition to her teaching duties, O'Neill has also done extensive volunteer work with the special needs students. It is quite obviously her passion. O'Neill is married and has a stepson. Her mother now resides in the Sarasota area. She does not acknowledge any particular stressors in her life during the School Year, but her behavior indicated otherwise. Besides the aforementioned actions concerning her students, O'Neill's interaction with other professionals was also somewhat strained. At least one professional consultant who interacted with O'Neill during the School Year reported that she was less flexible and agreeable than in the past. O'Neill's aides saw a great difference in her demeanor and behavior in that year versus prior years. O'Neill denies feeling "burned out" during the School Year, but there are numerous indicators to suggest that her behavior had changed. The nature of her actions, vis-à-vis her students, who she seemed to love, suggests a high degree of stress. Her behaviors during the School Year were so different from her historical style that something must have been amiss in her life.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Dr. Eric H. Smith, Commissioner of Education, imposing upon Respondent, Diana O'Neill, the following penalty: Suspension of Respondent's teaching certificate through the end of the 2010-2011 school year, followed by two years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154 Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer, Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent should be assigned to the school system's opportunity school program.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, Guillermmo Hernandez, was an eighth grade student assigned to South Miami Middle School. While in math class during November, 1988 through January, 1989, Respondent was disruptive in the classroom, tardy on several occasions and unprepared for class. In an attempt to ascertain the reasons for his behavior and to assist him, Respondent's parents were consulted, Respondent was consulted, and Respondent was assigned to detention and work detail. Again, while in home economics class during February through March, 1989, Respondent disrupted the classroom by his antics which on one occasion included piercing his ear and dressing as a girl. Respondent also chased other students, popping them with towels. Here too, his parents were consulted, Respondent was consulted and he was assigned to both outdoor and indoor supervision. Respondent is a disturbed young man who at first appears to be a class clown. He pushes a situation until is becomes a problem and then begs for forgiveness. Further, he does not appear to be learning disabled. However, after repeated attempts to help him, it is apparent that he is unable to control himself in a regular classroom and would benefit from a more structured setting such as the opportunity school program of the Dade County School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to school system's opportunity school program. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 29th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mr. and Mrs. Juan Hernandez 6361 S.W. 33rd Street Miami, Florida 33155 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
