The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment as a teacher in the Orange County Public Schools based on charges of incompetency and gross insubordination, as set forth in the letter of L. Linton Deck, Jr., dated August 16, 1977.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Ethel R. Jones has been an elementary school teacher for twelve years. She taught a year in Georgia before obtaining her degree in commercial education at Bethune-Cookman College at Daytona Beach, Florida, in 1960. After teaching for one year at Hungerford Elementary School in Eatonville, Orange County, Florida, in 1963, she pursued further studies and received her certification in elementary education. After teaching several years in various Orange County and Highlands County public schools, she became employed at Ocoee Elementary School, Ocoee, Florida, in 1970 and taught there for seven years through the 1976-77 school year. She was on annual contract for the first four years and then was granted a continuing contract the following year. She taught a sixth-grade class her first year at Ocoee and then became a fourth-grade teacher until the 1976-77 year when she again instructed a class of approximately 31 sixth-grade pupils. (Testimony of Respondent) Respondent served under three principals at Ocoee from 1972 to 1977. School records reflect that from 1973 two of the principals each rendered two annual performance reports on respondent termed "Assessment of Instruction." During the first year of each of these periods, the principals noted that respondent needed improvement in maintaining good rapport with students, parents and co-workers. During the second year of each period, each principal rated the respondent satisfactory in all respects. The third principal, Maxie Cinnamon, assumed her duties at Ocoee during the 1976-77 school year. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) During the first month of the school year, Principal Cinnamon received approximately twelve-complaints about the respondent from parents of children in her class. Most of these complaints dealt with apprehensions concerning respondent's teaching ability based on her prior performance with fourth-grade students. As a result, Cinnamon visited the respondent's classroom on September 9, 1976, and observed class instruction for several hours. She noted a number of deficiencies in the quality of respondent's teaching. These included unfamiliarity with the definitions of common words, inadequate preparation and lesson plans, inappropriate grouping of students and poor communication with students. These observations were set forth in great detail in a written document, dated September 14, 1976, which was provided to respondent as recommendations for improvement. Additionally, an unofficial "Assessment of Instruction" was rendered by the principal that indicated need for improvement in various areas. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1, 7) During the course of the school year, the principal continued to receive complaints from parents and requests that their children be transferred from respondent's class. These complaints included reports that respondent was an inadequate teacher and that her disciplinary methods were inappropriate. In addition, no improvement in the previously-noted areas of deficiency had been observed by the principal. A number of conferences between Cinnamon and the respondent transpired in the fall of 1976 in an attempt to resolve these continuing problems, but achieved little or no success. Cinnamon directed a number of memorandums to respondent pointing out problem areas and suggesting remedial steps. She also suggested special courses and seminars that respondent could attend to improve her classroom instruction and to achieve a better relationship with parents and students. The respondent referred students to the principal's office on disciplinary matters some 35 times during the school year. For the most part, these referrals involved male students who were low achievers and either disrupted the classroom or failed to complete lesson assignments. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 8,9, 11-14) In December, 1976, Principal Cinnamon requested the Professional Practice Council of the State Department of Education to make a professional reviewer available to observe respondent's classroom performance and provide any necessary suggestions or recommendations for improvement. Thereafter, on January 31 and February 1, 1977, Mrs. Gretchen M. Olcott, a classroom teacher from Pinellas County, was sent to Ocoee Elementary School and conducted a "remediation review" concerning respondent. She rendered a report of her observations which was furnished to the respondent on March 11, 1977. The report contained many critical remarks concerning the quality of respondent's teaching ability and included detailed recommendations and suggestions for improvement. Most of Olcott's observations paralleled closely the previous deficiencies noted by Cinnamon and dealt primarily with inadequate lesson plans, lack of organization, poor student behavior patterns, lack of effective use of teaching materials and equipment, and the need to establish clear objectives and long-range goals. Also on March 11, Cinnamon wrote a letter to the respondent again listing her deficiencies and providing recommendations in that regard. The letter informed the respondent that unless she showed substantial improvement in all the noted areas by May 1, 1977, it would be necessary that she be recommended for dismissal to the Superintendent of the Orange County Schools. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Petitioner's Exhibits 3-5) During the ensuing weeks, Cinnamon was of the opinion that respondent had not materially improved her shortcomings despite efforts to assist her. At a conference in March, she told respondent that if she made no substantial improvement by May 23, she would recommend dismissal. She also requested that another reviewer be provided by the Professional Practices Council. Mr. Richard Svirskas visited respondent's classroom from May 11 to 13, 1977, for the Professional Practices Council. His report was similar to that of the previous reviewer and it concluded that respondent was far below average in ability in comparison with the majority of teachers known to the reviewer. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) As a result of the reviewers' reports and respondent's failure to show improvement, Principal Cinnamon, on June 7, 1977, recommended to the Superintendent of Orange County public schools that she be dismissed from employment. Based on this recommendation, the Superintendent, by letter of August 16, 1977, charged the respondent with 14 areas of incompetency and three instances of gross insubordination. On August 18, 1977, the Superintendent recommended to the School Board of Orange County that respondent be suspended without pay pending a hearing on the charges if requested. The school board approved the recommendation and suspended the respondent without pay. Respondent thereafter requested a hearing in the matter. (Testimony of Cinnamon, Case File) Respondent testified as a witness and maintained that she had received no support during the year from the school administration and that she could not please Principal Cinnamon in any respect. She feels that she was the victim of a conspiracy between Cinnamon and parents of her students, and that the independent reviewers sent to assess her classroom performance were "against" her because they had met with Cinnamon in private during their visit. The respondent further implied that Cinnamon had a dislike for her because she was the only black teacher in the intermediate level. No black students were enrolled at Ocoee Elementary School during the 1976-77 school year, but there were five black teachers including the respondent. The respondent further claimed that she had done her utmost to follow the recommendations for improvement made to her by Cinnamon and the reviewers, but that she received no assistance from the administration in this regard. Further, she claimed that she was unable to enroll in certain reading, student discipline, and teacher effectiveness courses for various reasons; however, she did take a mathematics course at her own expense and attended several seminars. Although Cinnamon had testified that she had instructed respondent not to set up learning centers in her classroom because of her lack of organizational ability, the respondent denied that she was given such instructions. She testified that she established this system of instruction because Cinnamon had recommended it to her. She also denied that she had placed children in the halls for disciplinary reasons, or deliberately omitted to teach reading and math on each school day, contrary to instructions, as claimed by Cinnamon. (Testimony of Jones, Cinnamon) Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it is found that during the 1976-77 school year: Respondent failed to make adequate plans and set definite objectives for her class- room instruction. Respondent failed to provide learning situations consistent with students' abilities. Respondent failed to exhibit adequate command of the subject matter that she taught. Respondent failed to communicate clearly and effectively with the students. Respondent failed to control the class so that a positive learning environment was created and maintained. Respondent failed to adequately pursue her professional growth and to seek ways of correcting identified deficiencies. It is further found that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent committed the following alleged acts of gross insubordination: Suspended children from class by placing them in the hall and otherwise leaving them unsupervised after being specifically told not to do so. Failed to teach reading and math on each school day as specifically instructed to do. Failed and refused to maintain and utilize a plan book as instructed by the principal. It is further found that insufficient evidence was presented to establish that the respondent was a victim of a conspiracy by the principal of Ocoee Elementary School or anyone else, or that any racial discrimination was practiced against her.
Recommendation That respondent Ethel R. Jones be dismissed from employment by the School Board of Orange County, Florida, for incompetency, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes. Done and Entered this 5th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. DuRocher, Esquire 326 North Fern Creek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Howard W. Cooper, Esquire 101 South Lake Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 John W. Bowen, Esquire 308 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should be dismissed from his position as a physical education teacher aide for the reasons cited in petitioner's letter of March 12, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Wilson McKenzie, Jr., was employed as a physical education teacher aide at St. Petersburg Challenge (SPC) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The school is a part of the public school system operated by petitioner, School Board of Pinellas County (Board). Respondent's employment with the Board began on August 16, 1990, when he was assigned as a full time physical education teacher aide at Melrose Elementary School (MES). In early September McKenzie was reassigned to work at MES during the morning hours only and then during the afternoon hours at SPC, a drop-out prevention school for disadvantaged fourth and fifth graders. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the Pinellas Educational Support Personnel Association and the Board, respondent served in a probationary status during his first six months of employment. Under the same agreement, he was continued in that status for an additional ninety days after his first evaluation. According to Article 9, Section 1 of the agreement, a probationary employee may be terminated "for any reason", and the Board's termination letter of March 12, 1991, relied upon that provision of the agreement as its authority for terminating McKenzie. Pending the outcome of this proceeding, McKenzie has remained in a suspended without pay status since March 28, 1991. The Board's Reasons for Termination Respondent's performance at MES during the morning hours was apparently satisfactory since petitioner, in its charging letter of March 12, 1991, chose not to rely upon any performance deficiencies at MES as a basis for termination. 1/ As the first ground for terminating respondent, petitioner alleged that respondent was deficient in the "area of relationships with students". To support this charge, petitioner presented the testimony of ten students, all fifth graders at SPC during school year 1990-91 and who came in contact with respondent. While some of the students gave conflicting versions of what transpired, and thus their complaints were questionable, it is found that, contrary to school policy and orders from his supervising teacher, respondent yelled at and argued with students during physical education class in an effort to enforce class discipline. In addition, he placed his hand on students' shoulders or backs and would pinch them despite their requests that he not do so, and twice called students insulting names (e.g., bitch) in the presence of other students. It was further established that on several occasions respondent went to the home of a student to discuss school problems instead of inviting the parent to come to the school. He also had difficulty in maintaining classroom discipline. Several of the students testified that respondent made them uncomfortable by "staring" at them during class or lunch period. Finally, respondent was observed by several students looking up the dress of a female student who sat on the floor with her legs spread apart. In fairness to respondent, however, it should be noted that in some instances the students were acting in an unruly fashion or were violating cafeteria rules by talking loudly and "trading" food, thus prompting respondent to yell at them. Even so, it is fair to say that respondent had numerous difficulties in his relationships with students and most of the students who testified disliked respondent and appeared to be afraid of him. In addition to the above ground, petitioner has cited respondent's failure to follow "directives from superiors" as a second reason for terminating his employment. This charge stems primarily from respondent's sponsorship of a dance program for students that he conducted after school hours. Respondent's group was known as the Very Important Kids Association and was made up of young, disadvantaged children from the south side of St. Petersburg. Respondent was told early on by various superiors, including the SPC principal, assistant principal and physical education teacher, that group activities should not be arranged during school hours, the group should not meet on school property and respondent should refrain from asking students to join his group during school hours. Despite having at least three formal conferences with SPC administrators concerning this matter, and receiving written memoranda with specific instructions, respondent continued to violate these instructions by asking students during school hours to join his group. By doing so, respondent failed to follow "directives from superiors" as alleged in the charging document. Respondent's Case Respondent, who is 27 years old, maintained at hearing that he was "set up" on these charges by unnamed individuals and that he gave his best effort at doing a good job. McKenzie pointed out that he had no problems at MES and that all problems were encountered at SPC. He stated he is sincerely interested in helping underprivileged children and offered a number of letters from third parties to corroborate this contention. Through cross-examination, respondent established that several complaints offered by the testifying students were caused by their own misbehavior and respondent's subsequent efforts to discipline them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of the allegations in the charging document and that he be terminated from his position as a teacher aide. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on grounds alleged in the Civil Service Notice of Disciplinary Action of May 10, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent in Petitioner's maintenance department as a Carpenter I. Respondent was a non-probationary educational support employee as defined in Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes (2003), which is substantially similar to Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes (2001), and its predecessors. In October 1995, Respondent's fishing boat collided with a commercial barge. As a result of the accident, Respondent's father and uncle were killed and Respondent's son suffered serious bodily injury. Respondent had a history of poor attendance at work. Sometime prior to October 1998, Respondent's supervisor counseled him and recommended discipline due to unexcused and excessive absences from work. Respondent was arrested in October 1998 as the result of the boating accident. Respondent initially was charged with one count each of vessel homicide, culpable negligence, and boating under the influence (BUI) severe bodily injury, and two counts of manslaughter. On April 28, 2000, a jury found Respondent guilty as charged. It is undisputed that Respondent was absent from work without authorization or approved leave from April 17, 2000 through May 17, 2000. Petitioner terminated his employment effective May 17, 2000. Respondent was sentenced on August 22, 2000, for the following offenses: causing serious bodily injury to another, culpable negligence in the death of another, vessel homicide, and two counts of BUI manslaughter. On appeal, some of Respondent's felony convictions were discharged. However, the Court affirmed Respondent's BUI manslaughter convictions. See Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The court in Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), certified a question of great public importance involving a jury instruction to the Florida Supreme Court. See Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, Case No. SC02-1264, Rev.gr. 832 So. 2d 103 (Table) (Fla. November 19, 2002). At the time of the hearing, the Florida Supreme Court continued to have jurisdiction over Respondent's criminal case. Therefore, Respondent's convictions for BUI manslaughter remain in effect. Petitioner's Rule 2.24 provides that personnel absent from work without approved leave shall forfeit compensation and be subject to discipline, including termination. Unavailability for work due to incarceration does not constitute a basis for approved leave and is an unauthorized absence.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 2nd day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Cardenas Department of Corrections No. 202263 Reception and Medical Center Post Office Box 628 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 323299-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 600100 which certifies Respondent in the area of elementary education. This certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher at North County Elementary School (NCES), one of the schools in the Dade County School District. At the time of the formal hearing, respondent was employed as a classroom teacher at Liberty City Elementary, another of the schools in the Dade County School District. Respondent is an experienced school teacher who was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, assigned to teach a sixth grade alternative education class at NCES. Wanda McMillon is a Paraprofessional I and was assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom on a full-time basis during the 1990-91 school year. There were approximately 15 students assigned to Respondent's class at NCES. Alternate education deals with children who are behavior problems, have attendance problems, or who are recommended by their counselors to attend alternate education for other reasons. Many of these students come from broken families. Students in Respondent's class frequently engaged in inappropriate and unruly behavior. Examples of this misbehavior included students throwing objects, hitting the Respondent, taking the Respondent's property, and running out of the classroom. As the teacher, Respondent is responsible for maintaining discipline in the classroom. The record is clear that discipline was a serious problem in Respondent's classroom. On November 2, 1990, an incident occurred in Respondent's classroom at NCES involving Respondent and Arthur Brown, a student who had been assigned to Respondent's alternative education class because he was a behavioral problem. Arthur was out of his seat without permission. Arthur did not obey the Respondent's instructions to sit down. Respondent thereafter touched Arthur Brown's shoulder in an attempt to get him to take his seat. Arthur pulled away from Respondent and picked up a plastic chair with metal legs. Arthur held this chair above his head and attempted to hit Respondent with the chair. Respondent grabbed the legs of the chair and a brief struggle for the chair ensued. Respondent took the chair away from Arthur Brown. During the struggle for the chair, Arthur was struck in the forehead by the plastic portion of the chair, but he suffered no meaningful injury. Respondent did not use excessive force in dealing with Arthur. Respondent's defensive reaction to this situation was reasonable and necessary to protect himself and possibly others from this student. 1/ On a date during the 1990-91 school year prior to November 2, 1990 2/, an incident occurred in Respondent's classroom involving Respondent and Vincent Bennett, a disruptive student who had been assigned to Respondent's alternative education class. Vincent was playing near the classroom door when Respondent told him to sit down. When Vincent failed to sit down, Respondent seized Vincent's arm and tried to redirect the student. Vincent began to struggle with Respondent and broke free of his grasp. Vincent began to run around Respondent flailing his arms and hitting Respondent. Respondent reacted by striking Vincent in the upper chest with the back of his hand. Vincent fell to the ground and began to cry. Although Vincent became mad as a result of that incident, there was no evidence that Vincent was injured by Respondent. It is concluded that Respondent's reaction to the attack by Vincent was reasonable and that Respondent did not use excessive force in responding to that situation. 3/ There was testimony that Respondent grabbed Vincent and Arthur by the arm on other occasions. There was, however, no showing that Respondent used excessive force in dealing with Vincent or Arthur on these other occasions or that he engaged in unacceptable conduct. There was testimony that Respondent grabbed or pushed other students in the class, including Lasavo Darkins, Marcus Hollis, Elijah Wadley, and Latraveus Dardy. The evidence established that Respondent's contact with these students occurred while the students were misbehaving and was an attempt to redirect the students. The testimony pertaining to these incidents otherwise lacks factual detail and does not establish that excessive force was used by Respondent. This vague testimony is insufficient to base a finding of wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. There was no evidence that Respondent's method of dealing with these students constituted professional misconduct. There was conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent improperly used profanity in front of the students in his classroom. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, it is found that Respondent did not address his students in profane terms and that he did not otherwise improperly use profanity in front of the students in his classroom. On February 20, 1991, Respondent received a written reprimand from Ruthann Marleaux, the principal of NCES, which provided, in part, as follows: You are hereby officially reprimanded for the following violations of your professional contract responsibilities: Failure to: "Maintain a safe and orderly learning environment...that disruptive behavior be dealt with safely, fairly, consistently and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. Respondent received an annual evaluation of "unacceptable" from his principal for the 1990-91 school year. Respondent testified that this evaluation was subsequently changed to acceptable. Although the subsequent evaluation was not introduced into evidence, the testimony of Respondent is accepted since his testimony is consistent with his continued employment as a teacher in the public schools of Dade County, Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Carr has been employed as an art teacher for the School Board of Dade County, Florida, since approximately 1972. He has taught at the senior high, middle school, and elementary school levels. He obtained tenure during 1976 or 1977. He has had varying levels of success according to his official performance evaluation ratings that are contained in his personnel file. In all but three years of his service, his annual evaluations have contained at least one category that was at or below an acceptable level of teaching in the Dade County Schools. Since the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent has received unacceptable ratings in three out of eight evaluative criteria on his annual evaluations. Respondent Carr has been the subject of personnel investigations on five different occasions, each involving the alleged use of physical contact beyond what is normally acceptable with students. Three instances of misuse of physical contact/corporal punishment were tried at the November 14, 1983, hearing. In the first incident which occurred in September, 1978, the Respondent came up behind a student and placed his hand in the student's hair in order to remove him from a classroom. From that point forward, it is unclear exactly what occurred since the incident which happened five years prior to the hearing could not be specifically recalled by the student. The student did, however, swing his arms at the Respondent in order to release the Respondent's grasp on the back of his head. In the second incident which also occurred in September, 1978, Respondent reached across student Byron Martin's desk with a pole or a stick and tapped the student on the head. The Respondent did not hurt the student who testified at the final hearing that other people made a bigger issue out of the incident than he did. In the final incident, during October or November, 1982, the Respondent turned the head of student Karen Bass, a nine-year-old girl, in order to get her attention. Karen became scared and began to cry. The Respondent did not intend to strike or frighten Karen, but turned her head to try and prevent her from being distracted by another student. Respondent was formally observed by the assistant principal of Edison Park Elementary School, Jill Witlin, on May 15, 1980. He was found to be overall unacceptable and specifically unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because he was not able to manage the classroom. The students did not respond to him. They did not follow his directions or do what he asked them to do. As he became frustrated with the class, he would use sarcasm and cynicism. The Respondent addressed the students in an angry manner and did not seem to know their names. At times he would bring students to the office, pushing them toward the assistant principal saying that he could not deal with them. This is an inappropriate way to handle students because it lets students know that a teacher cannot deal with them, lets them see the teacher's frustrations, and is a misuse of physical force. A teacher is required to have the skills and techniques for dealing with students calmly, despite emotions. Mrs. Witlin rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because Respondent dealt with very technical kinds of instruction without following conventional, developmental learning modes of children. The lesson was too heavily teacher-directed and Respondent was very concerned with the ultimate art product. His instruction was very technical without giving the children any sense of where they were headed. This is not an appropriate way to teach elementary school children. Such children learn best when they have some sense of what they are doing and why they are doing it, rather than just following instructions. Respondent taught above the level of the children and used vocabulary and instructions that were too difficult for them to understand. There were times when Respondent did not use CurriculArt. There were other times when he did use CurriculArt but he did not fulfill many of the aspects of what the CurriculArt manual suggested. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because he talked to the students in a harsh manner. He did not know the names of his students so he called them "Boy" or "Girl." He referred to the students in a negative manner and did not have a good opinion of what they could accomplish or learn. He was negative toward what they knew and what they could produce. He was also negative about their behavior. There was screaming coming from his room that could be heard in the hallways. Respondent could be heard saying "shut up" to his students. Respondent would make negative comments about students in front of other students. This is inappropriate because it can damage a child's self- concept, does not provide a proper role model for a child, and makes the teacher immediately lose his position as an authority figure. As a result, some of the Respondent's art students did not want to go to his class at all. On Respondents's annual evaluation, although he received three unacceptable categories, he was recommended for employment the following year. His classroom management was unacceptable because he spent a great deal of time at the outset of classroom time lecturing students about their behavior from the previous week's class. He took up 10 or 15 minutes of instruction time doing this. Once he got the class started, the students lacked direction and walked around the room not knowing what their particular task was. Respondent had great difficulty in keeping their interest and keeping everyone on task. At times the room became so noisy that Respondent had to scream and yell in an attempt to get the class under control. The class got progressively worse as the classroom time extended. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because he had difficulty in working with students in a positive manner. He name-called and belittled students in front of other students. He said such things as "stupid" and "you are stupid" and "you really don't know what you are talking about; you are no good." These statements are demoralizing and ridiculing to students in front of other students. His instructional techniques did not motivate and enable students to learn. Respondent was next formally evaluated by his principal, Della Zaher, on June 16, 1981. He was found to be overall unacceptable and was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was marked unacceptable in preparation and planning because he did not have his materials ready for this particular class. He began the class by talking about the children's negative behavior from the week before. Then he spent a good portion of the class time trying to retrieve the materials and getting them ready for the classroom instruction. In the meantime, the children became disruptive because of the time that Respondent had taken for this preparation. Respondent was marked unacceptable in knowledge of the subject matter because his vocabulary was overly advanced for elementary-age children and they had no idea what he was saying. The students did not understand the intent of the lesson. Most of the time, they were sitting idle, not comprehending the lesson. This led to unacceptable classroom management. Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because of his negative and sarcastic comments to the children. There was no mutual respect on the part of the children or the teacher. If the children did not follow exactly what was presented to them, he would tear up their papers and throw them in the waste basket. When the children did their tasks incorrectly, Respondent could be heard outside of his classroom scolding his students even with the door closed. The children were not in their seats and were not working on the lesson. The entire classroom period was devoted to this type of disruptive behavior. Respondent could not correct the children by calling their names because he apparently did not know their names although he could have learned their names through the use of a seating chart or name tags. Other teachers who taught special classes, and who had as many students as Respondent, did not have the same difficulty ascertaining the names of the children. Respondent did not improve in his knowledge of the children's names by the end of the school term or from year to year when he had many of the same children again. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not have a way of explaining the assignments and giving clear instructions to his students. He never completed a task on time because he took too much classroom time disciplining the students and telling them about their behavior from the previous week. Because of this, he did not finish his lessons. The endings of his class periods were chaotic. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because of the manner in which he graded students' papers. He used a random assessment technique. There was no consistency in grading procedures. He would have the students stand up and show their papers and he would try to grade them. This technique can be ridiculing to students. There was very little meaning in the lesson for the children because he did not explain to them why they got the grades they got. He never completed an entire class and he spent a great deal of the class time at the end of the period trying to record grades. The students who were not being graded were disruptive. The Respondent kept no individual folders on the students where a student's progress could be monitored; instead, the papers were placed in a stack of papers in a closet. With Respondent's lack of a paper filing system, it would be impossible to explain to a parent why a child got a particular grade on his report card. His grade book was not up-to-date and he did not have sufficient grades for each child. Respondent was also marked unacceptable in student-teacher relationships because of his continual negative approach. Respondent did not indicate any real respect for each individual child in his classroom. There were some students who did not want to go to art class. In every conference that Respondent had with the principal, Respondent reminded her that black children could not learn. He also stated this belief to Ms. Witlin in that he felt the schools were spinning their wheels and wasting their time working in a low income, black area. Respondent was marked unsatisfactory in professional responsibility because he had difficulty turning his grades in on time so that the classroom teachers could record the students' art grades on their report cards. Respondent was again recommended for employment on his annual evaluation for the 1980-81 school year, although he was rated unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher- student relationships. He was recommended for reemployment because he had shown some improvement and the principal was interested in trying to improve his instructional techniques and his classroom instruction. Respondent was next formally observed by his principal, Mrs. Zaher, on September 25, 1981. While Respondent was marked overall acceptable, he was still unacceptable in classroom management, teacher-student relationships, and in one subcategory of preparation and planning. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management because his voice was still very loud. He would almost lose complete control when he could not get the students' attention. He still began the class by lecturing to them about their behavior from the previous week. He did not have the materials ready to begin the lesson which added to the poor classroom management and resulted in more disruption. The children became disruptive each time Respondent had to retrieve supplies. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because he was unaware of the lack of student interest and other individual differences which caused students to be disruptive. Respondent was next formally observed by Ms. Witlin on October 23, 1981. Although he was found to be overall acceptable, this observation was a result of priming by Ms. Witlin. She met with Respondent early in the year to go over the observation form in great detail prior to the actual observation in an attempt to show him exactly what she would be looking for. He followed through on many of the things she had suggested. As a result, the lesson was acceptable. The next formal observation was performed by Jacqueline Hinchey, Art Supervisor for the Dade County Public Schools. Ms. Hinchey was called in to give advice to Respondent. She attempted to be as positive as possible. She rated the Respondent acceptable even in borderline areas in her attempt to be helpful and positive. Ms. Hinchey rated the Respondent overall acceptable. She felt that while he had made strides in improving his instructional techniques and public relations strategies, his knowledge of child development was still very limited. The major shortcoming of his teaching was that because he did not understand how children grew, he was unable to level his knowledge in a manner so that the children could understand and be able to succeed. Because of his lack of understanding how children grew, he had unreal expectations of them. This resulted in his will being pitted against the children's will. As a result, Respondent became angry. The children were not doing what he expected them to do or what he wanted them to do or they could not do it, and he, therefore, became angry. He was not using CurriculArt. CurriculArt is a School Board-approved program which incorporates the School Board's balanced curriculum. A teacher is required to use CurriculArt unless he has submitted a different, but acceptable, program to Ms. Hinchey. Since no school in the county has submitted an alternate curriculum, it would be expected that all art teachers, including Respondent, would be using CurriculArt. Respondent was still assessing the children's work by having them hold up their work, and he would say that one child's work was the best. This is not an appropriate assessment technique because he did not explain why a work was the best and also makes the other children feel inadequate. The Respondent tended to talk too long and his demonstrations were too technical and detailed for the age group with which he was working. Since not all the children could see his demonstration, they would begin to get fidgety. Respondent was recommended for reemployment at the end of the 1981-82 school year. Although Respondent needed to improve his techniques of instruction, he was showing some improvement. Respondent was next formally observed by Ms. Witlin on November 15, 1982. He was found to be overall unacceptable and was rated unacceptable in one subcategory of preparation and planning and in the areas of techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Respondent was marked unacceptable in Part A of preparation and planning because while his planning was done, the lesson was not an effective one. He needed to plan his lesson in much greater detail in terms of what he wanted to accomplish, what time frames he would use, and what specific actions he would take. Respondent was still not using CurriculArt. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not accept student responses and utilize students' ideas, and he did not vary instructional strategies or adapt his methodology to different students. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because art projects were not graded and were not organized into portfolios. There were insufficient grades in the grade book. There was no ongoing regular assessment week after week and the assessment was irregular. Respondent was marked unacceptable in professional responsibility because there were consistent delays in getting his art grades to the home room teachers. If Respondent would have kept up with his grades on a weekly basis and had averaged them, he would not have had a problem getting his grades to the home room teachers. He had to rush to get the grades in to the teachers at the last minute and as a result, the other teachers bothered the assistant principal for them all day long on the teacher workday. This was not a professional way to operate. Further, Respondent's room was very disorganized, messy, and uninviting. The next formal observation was performed by Ms. Witlin approximately a week and a half after her last observation. This observation took place on November 24, 1982. "While his progress was not fully acceptable, there was propress over the prior observations. Ms. Witlin wanted to encourage Respondent's use of CurriculArt which she had prescribed in the prior observation. His classroom management was unacceptable because he spent an inordinate amount of time introducing the lesson, preparing the materials for it and following the CurriculArt card to the letter. He began to lose track of time. He was not able to pace the lesson properly and when he told the children to stop doing their work they did not listen to him. As time ran out and things started to unravel, the Respondent became frustrated. Classroom discipline broke down badly. He was not able to grade the children's work or give them a conduct grade. He was marked unacceptable in a subcategory D of techniques of instruction because he did not give ample time for cleanup, or organization of materials, and for putting away art products. The next formal observation was performed by Ms. Zaher on December 14, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and in one subcategory of preparation and planning. He was found unacceptable in category C of preparation and planning because he did not arrange for the distribution of materials in an effective manner, and he did not begin his lesson on time. He would begin his lesson by spending time talking about the children's behavior from the prior weeks. He was never able to complete a lesson because of the time taken to discipline the children and to give instructions as to how they should behave. Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because he never got the class under control. He ran out of time and did not complete grading. He did not close his lesson. He spent too much time trying to get the classroom under control. Students were out of their seats running around the room and exhibiting disruptive behavior. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the children had no time to finish their lesson and clean up. Respondent lost instructional time because of disruptiveness. Although Respondent was rated acceptable in assessment techniques, he was still shouting out grades in front of the whole class, and taking up a great deal of time trying to grade the children. The next formal observation was performed by Ms. Hinchey on January 10, 1983. He was rated overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent deteriorated in his teacher-student relationships and in his teaching techniques since Ms. Hinchey's prior observations. Teacher-student relationships was marked unsatisfactory, because Respondent frequently appeared and sounded angry with his students. He still did not know the names of the students and pointed or gestured at the students when he wanted them. The students became fidgety and began to nudge each other and whisper. The more this happened, the more upset Respondent became. He gave the students angry looks and raised his voice. Techniques of instruction was marked unsatisfactory because one-third of the class could not see a demonstration rubbing. As a result, the children did not get the idea of what a rubbing is. They did not get the idea of repeating the shapes on the page and there was no planned critique at the end of the lesson so that the children could see if they understood the goals of the lesson. Respondent was still assessing the students' work by choosing the best one at the table. Respondent was using the Curricul Art card but the lesson was misleveled and the lesson was very minimal. During the many informal observations of Respondent, he fared no better. He had the same kinds of problems that he had on the formal observations. He was having trouble in all of his classes and he was frustrated and angry with his students. The administration has attempted to help Respondent improve his teaching. Since Respondent had been having difficulties in his prior school assignment, Ms. Hinchey recommended that he be placed in the elementary level where there was more structure and a curriculum that could easily be followed. She recommended that he be put with an administrator who was known to be a helping person and someone who would patiently work with him. Her recommendation was that Respondent be placed with Della Zaher at Edison Park Elementary. Ms. Zaher had a reputation of being an administrator who could get along with individuals and would try to work with them closely to get the best out of them. After various classroom observations, the administrator prescribed various means of help for the Respondent. It was recommended that Respondent observe two good art teachers in other inner-city elementary schools in order to see that it was possible to get good control from these students. An assertive discipline workshop was also prescribed for the Respondent. It was recommended to Respondent that he take the time to learn the students' names. The administration ordered any supplies that Respondent wanted in order to provide him adequate materials with which to work. The administrators recommended that Respondent establish classroom rules, enforce them, and use behavior modification techniques. Conferences were held with Respondent in order to help him improve. It was suggested that Respondent meet with the counselor of the school in order to learn positive techniques for motivating student interest and for learning techniques to control student behavior in a positive way. It was recommended that Respondent attend workshops. It was recommended that he tape his own lessons to hear how he addresses students so that he would be aware that he was not getting the response that he wanted. Ms. Witlin asked Respondent to discuss his feelings about the students and to take a humanistic attitude toward the children and to observe a variety of teachers at Edison Park, teachers of the young, and teachers of old, and teachers of ethnic groups to see how pleasantly and positively they got along with the students. In early October, 1981, as discussed above, Ms. Witlin gave Respondent extra help prior to his November 15, 1982 observation in order to help him reach an acceptable observation. After the November 15, 1982 observation it was prescribed that Respondent begin to use CurriculArt. Ms. Witlin developed an elaborate procedure in order to help the special teachers get their grades to the home room teachers on workdays. Ms. Zaher brought in the art supervisor, Jacqueline Hinchey, to give advice to Respondent. Ms. Hinchey recommended the CurriculArt workshops for Respondent. She also recommended that the area art consultant and the assistant principal work with Respondent. The area art consultant worked specifically with Respondent in the areas of classroom management and planning five or six times during the 1982-83 school year. He assisted Respondent with planning and did a demonstration lesson for Respondent. The art consultant recommended the two teachers whom Respondent was to visit in the other schools. None of these prescriptions seemed to improve Respondent's performance. As a final attempt to offer Respondent an opportunity to improve his teaching, Ms. Zaher recommended a reduction from continuing contract to annual contract status. She felt that if he would understand that the school system meant serious business, Respondent would do something about his teaching. This was the last remedial action, a final opportunity for Respondent to improve his teaching while on a probationary status and placing the burden of competent performance on him. On December 17, 1982, Ms. Zaher put Respondent on notice that he had not sufficiently improved in the areas of planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction and assessment. At that time, she could not recommend him for continuing contract status. She indicated that in order to be recommended for continuing contract by February 25, 1983, there must be improvement as indicated in her memo. On February 9, 1983, Ms. Zaher notified Respondent that she would be recommending that he be returned to annual contract status for the 1983-84 school year since the standard of performance indicated on her memo of December 17 had not been achieved. At a conference-for-the- record with the Executive Director, Division of Personnel Control of the Dade County Public Schools, on March 14, 1983, the charges were made known to the Respondent, and his prior investigative reports were reviewed. It is the consensus of opinion of the administrators who observed Respondent that the students in Respondent's class did not receive the minimal amount of educational experience to which they were entitled. There was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the children in his art room to such an extent that they were deprived a minimum educational experience. The art experience was a very negative experience for his students. Although Respondent is intelligent and knows his subject matter, he is a poor teacher. On March 23, 1983, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that he would recommend to the School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting on March 30, 1983, that Respondent's continuing contract be removed and that he be returned to annual contract status for the 1983-84 school year. The Superintendent's letter indicated a right to a hearing and a time frame within which to exercise that right. It also contained a copy of the charges, to wit: . . . for just cause including, but not limited to, incompetency . . . . On March 30, 1983, the Superintendent filed his written recommendation with the School Board, and the School Board acted to remove the continuing contract of Respondent and to return him to annual contract status effective for the 1983-84 school year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended: That a final order be entered by the Petitioner, Dade County School Board, affirming the reduction of contractual status of the Respondent Richard Carr from continuing contract to annual contract status. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1984 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 11th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire Jesse J. McCrary, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley 3050 Biscayne Boulevard 2929 S. W. Third Avenue Suite 800 Fifth Floor 3050 Miami, Florida 33137 Miami, Florida 33129 William DuFresne, Esquire Dr. Leonard Britton 1782 One Biscayne Tower Superintendent of Schools 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Dade County Public Schools Miami, Florida 33131 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Suite 200 1410 N. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent shall be dismissed from employment with the Dade County School Board upon grounds of incompetency and gross insubordination pursuant to Section 321.36, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-4.09(1) and 6B-4.09(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was, at all times relevant, an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida on an continuing contract as a teacher. Respondent is a 49 year old native of Bolivia, South America. She was educated in Bolivia, Paris, and the United States, receiving a Bachelor's degree from the University of Miami in approximately 1969 and a Master's degree from Northwestern University. Respondent's positions with the Dade County School Board may be summarized as follows: In early 1970 she was a teacher of English as a Second Language (ESOL). From 1971 to 1973, she served as a media specialist (librarian) at Blue Lakes Elementary School. From 1973 to 1978 she was a media specialist (librarian) at Seminole Elementary School. From 1978 to 1981 she was a third grade teacher of normal students at Douglas Elementary School and from 1981 until her suspension between the 1983-1984 and 1984- 1985 school terms, she was a first grade teacher at Kinloch Park Elementary School. Respondent started employment with the Dade County School Board in 1970. While employed, she received annual evaluations; her evaluations and performance from 1971 to November 1, 1983 were all favorable, except for an evaluation in the 1979-1980 school year. Approximately June 3, 1980, Respondent was given an annual evaluation for her performance as a third grade teacher at Douglas Elementary School for the 1979-1980 school year. Therein, then-principal Eugene Turano found her unacceptable in six of the eight observable evaluation criteria. This annual evaluation resulted from two formal observations. In February 1980, Respondent was observed and evidenced disciplinary and teaching difficulties related to the reading program. This was Respondent's first experience teaching third grade and her first assignment to that school. Mr. Turano assigned Ms. Whipple, his assistant principal, to work with Respondents concentrating on lesson planning. The subsequent observation did not indicate much improvement. At each of these observations, Respondent had the entire third grade in one reading group, which grouping was felt by Mr. Turano not to respond to individual needs. Also bulletin board use by Respondent was not conducive to encouraging student interest or providing assessment feedback. Respondent stayed at her desk instead of giving children individual attention. Because Respondent was thereafter absent on sick leave from March until May 1980, there was no time for diagnostic prescription. As a results Mr. Turano gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt and did not formally recommend her termination or return to annual contract as he normally would have done. He did formally recommend her for employment and did personally suggest to Respondent that she take some summer school courses. In March, 1981, the Respondent received an official letter of reprimand for failure to implement her authorization for a period of leave of absence from the school system. Although this constitutes official disciplinary action by Petitioner, Dr. Gray's explanation of the reasoning behind it is not persuasive that anything occurred here beyond an absenteeism problem eventually fully- authorized by Petitioner. Respondent came to Kinloch Park Elementary in the 1981- 1982 school term to teach first grade. Respondent's 1981-1982 annual evaluation by then- principal Dr. James McKenna was overall acceptable. Then-Assistant Principal Lucy Williams observed Respondent in the 1982- 1983 term and, finding her teaching deficient, put Respondent on prescription. Her class of two groups of non-readers and one group which had just begun to read at the first grade level was kept small. Mrs. Williams taught all lessons herself for a while and gradually released the class to Respondent's full control again. Because Respondent complied by keeping adequate grades and lesson plans, by dividing her reading students into three groups, and by decorating with visual aids on the bulletin boards, Mrs. Williams removed Respondent from reading class prescription in the spring of 1983 before Mrs. Williams' transferred to another elementary school. Mrs. Williams removed Respondent from the prescription without observing her in reading. At that time, however, Respondent continued to have assistance in the area of math instruction. Starting in the 1983-1984 term, Respondent taught a Chapter One first grade class of 15 both English-speaking and non-English-speaking students. Kinloch Park Elementary had become an all Chapter One school in February, 1983. "Chapter One" is a classification that comprises students in a federally funded program designed to teach only basic skills for the entire day. The Chapter One first grade class of Respondent was in the lower twentieth percentile of learning ability. On November 1, 1983, Respondent was formally observed by Kinloch's new principal, Dr. Cecelia Hack, for evaluation purposes. New, more detailed observation forms were being used by Dade County at this time. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in six of the eight standard evaluation criteria. Most noticeably, Respondent was failing to use the directed reading approach all teachers had been instructed by Dr. Hack to use. This system, contemplated by the teacher's manual, provides for assembling three reading groups based on individual student assessments, which groups rotate through activities made up of teacher direction and two varieties of follow-up activities. Based upon Dr. Hack's observations and testimony, it is found that on this occasion, Respondent concentrated too much time on the workbooks did not provide the group working independently with sufficient and correct materials, did not have her evaluation folders up to date and had only one grade per child and that grade was for report card purposes. She also had not returned adequate amounts of graded materials to the students so as to provide acceptable feedback and encouragement to them. Dr. Hack further observed lack of courteous interchange between Respondent and her class. Respondent's comments to her students were terse, intimidating, and not encouraging to small children. The Room was cold and sterile without lively bulletin boards to spark student interest, encourage desire to learn, or to provide pride of accomplishment and additional feedback to the students. Respondent conferenced with Dr. Hack and the assistant principal, Norma Aguilar, on November 3, 1983 and was put on prescription. Among other actions for remediation, Dr. Hack suggested that Respondent provide classroom activities reflecting the assigned instruction policy. She further suggested that Respondent sit and plan on a regular basis with two other teachers of Chapter One first graders. She arranged for Respondent to visit other classrooms and asked Dr. Charles Sherwood, Petitioner's Director of Basic Education, to send members of his staff to work with Respondent. A Mrs. Gonzalez, Chapter One Specialist, came several times to assist Respondent in implementing the Chapter One program. Mrs. Ellen Williams came to update the student assessments for Respondent. A time- line was established for December 1, 1983. Assistant Principal Aguilar's assistance was part of the prescriptive measures assigned for Respondent. She visited Respondent on at least a weekly basis to check on Respondent's lesson plans and to talk about what Respondent was supposed to be doing. Respondent was instructed that she must duplicate her own materials for class as that was part of each teacher's duties, but she was provided reading materials she needed on her prescription and tapes with recorded lessons so that the children could do more independent work. Respondent expressed resentment of the prescribed activities. She turned in no lesson plans. Mrs. Hack also expected Respondent to attend an in- service course on the primary education program (PREP) and that she use "RSVP," a diagnostic prescriptive reading program. Although Respondent completed the in-service workshop ending in late February or early March, she did not complete her material to be turned in until June 25, 1985. On December 6, 1983, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Norma Aguilar, for evaluation purposes and was found unacceptable in three categories of the standard evaluation criteria. Mrs. Aguilar had been part of Respondent's previous prescription. Because of hers and Ellen Williams' involvement, the requirement for assessment techniques had been met and the grade book was up-to-date. Respondent had improved her teacher-student relationships somewhat in that Respondent had learned to give some positive reinforcement to her students. At that time, although some deficiencies had been corrected pursuant to the previous prescription, Respondent remained unsatisfactory in preparation and planning knowledge of the subject matter, and in techniques of instruction. Instructional activities, and follow-up thereto and reading progress were inappropriate for the students. Various groups now were set up but all groups were set at the same activity at the same time instead of each group rotating through three activities within each instructional hour. Respondent continued to use terms considerably above the children's understanding; her directions were unclear to small children; and she persisted in using only the workbooks for directed teaching. Prescriptive measures were again set out for the improvement of Respondent's teaching performance. On February 15, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed for evaluation purposes by Dr. Hack and was found unacceptable in five categories of the standard evaluation criteria. One category was not rated. The deficiencies were much the same as in November 1983. Particular problems were again noted in preparation and planning knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Arrangements had not been made by Respondent for materials and the supplemental activities were not appropriate for the children doing the lesson plans. The children exhibited little respect for the material and did not seem to understand what was expected of them. Respondent constantly found fault with the children but contrariwise accepted sloppy written work. Respondent answered this criticism by saying she did not concern herself with neatness and manuscript form on math papers. Mrs. Hack felt Respondent was confused about what she was doing and although Respondent was grading more papers, Respondent was not returning graded papers regularly to meet the constant need of the children for feedback. Mrs. Hack felt Respondent's class should have moved much faster by so late in the school year and that the reading aspect was very weak. As remediation, Dr. Hack prescribed that Respondent use the teacher's manual and the "RSVP" decoding kits and books and that Respondent emphasize independent student activities that would keep all the students constructively occupied throughout each class hour. Further prescriptive measures were assigned. On March 22, 1984, Respondent was formally observed by Dr. Charles Sherwood, Petitioner's Director of Basis Education, for evaluation purposes and was rated unacceptable in four of the standard evaluation criteria. One category was not rated. At that time, Respondent's lesson plan was unacceptable because it provided insufficient student work. She was not using the required "9-block plan," rotating three groups of readers three times during the class session in twenty minute intervals per rotation. Her lesson plan showed an absence of anything but page numbers, which was directly contrary to county policy requiring minimally that objectives, independent activities, and evaluation methods be set out in the formal lesson plan. Appropriate classroom management was lacking in that many students were off- tasks although Dr. Sherwood noted that there was no genuine misbehavior. Respondent's only technique of instruction remained the directive approach. Her assessment technique was deficient in that only the first few weeks' assessment scores were evident. The children were about five months behind others comparably situated. In Dr. Sherwood's opinion, Respondent's excessive verbal instruction was not good for young students struggling with English who needed demonstrations rather than lectures. He felt Respondent's students were making less progress than normal for a Chapter One class. Further prescriptive measures were assigned Respondent after a conference with Dr. Hack. On April 18, 1984 Respondent was observed and evaluated again by Dr. Sherwood as unacceptable in four criteria. Two criteria were not rated. This left Respondent unacceptable in four out of six categories. Because of the short timeframe for prescribed remediation, Dr. Sherwood had assigned Ellen Williams' Director of the South Central Reading Center, to help Respondent. Mrs. Williams had worked with Respondent on methods of directing a reading lesson, maintaining close access to a chalkboard for introducing new vocabulary in context without the teacher having to leave the reading group, and had helped Respondent arrange the classroom furniture for group reading (instead of using rigid rows of desks). Thereafter, Respondent had returned the room to its original state. Dr. Hack and Mrs. Aguilar confirmed that a mobile chalkboard had been provided Respondent. Respondent explained her removal of the mobile chalkboard from her room as being done due to safety considerations occasioned by its sharp edges in near proximity to the faces of small children, but this does not explain why Respondent could not accomplish physical rotation of three groups of children so that each reading group would be near Respondent at the wall chalkboard during one of the required three teaching activities. The problems and unacceptable teaching activities observed by Dr. Sherwood on his second visit were very similar to those he observed on his first visit: absence of evaluation procedures and all students doing the same lesson regardless of their level of achievement. However, with Mrs. Williams' help, Respondent's records for evaluating student levels remained relevantly current. Dorothy Adside, an administrator at the level between area supervisor and school principal observed Respondent teaching on May 30, 1984. Prior to this observation, Mrs. Adside dispatched a primary educational specialist Mrs. Fulton, who conferred with Respondent and gave Respondent in-the-classroom assistance on two occasions. At the May 30 observation, however, Mrs. Adside found Respondent not acceptable in the categories of preparation and planning classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. She noted that there were no motivations for the children, not sufficient vocabulary development and not sufficient questioning from Respondent or use by her of visual study aids. Respondent's use of the "Round Robin" method of oral reading prevented the children from following her in their books as she read and otherwise thwarted the idea of rotating three activities for each group within a single class period. As a result of all the previous observations, evaluations, and unfulfilled prescriptions, Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1983-1984 school year was found to be unacceptable in four categories and unacceptable overall on June 1, 1984. There is a significant discrepancy between the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses and that of Respondent with regard to the in-service courses assigned as prescriptive measures. On the basis of the documentary evidence as well as the candor, demeanor, and credibility of all witnesses as well as the detail provided by Dr. Hack and Mrs. Aguilar concerning these prescriptive measures and their personal observation of Respondent's participation and non-participation in all or part of these courses, Respondent's testimony that no course assignment was ever made is not persuasive. It is found that Respondent was orally requested to enroll in certain in-service training programs offered for February 25 to March 3, 1984, April 10 to May 15, 1984, May 5 to May 12, 1984, and June 2 to June 9, 1984, but these requests were not always reduced to a written prescription and Respondent may, indeed, have understood that she was only required to attend in-service training when the instruction was reduced to writing. None the less, Respondent enrolled in one course February 25 to March 3, 1984, but did not complete her work until ordered to do so by Mrs. Aguilar in June 1984. At the conference-for-the-record on April 30, 1984, Dr. Hack observed Respondent changed facial expression and made sounds expressing resentment of various remedial prescriptions required of her. Respondent attributed most of her difficulties to a personality clash with Dr. Hack and to Dr. Hack's calling Respondent to her office on twelve occasions during the 1983-1984 school year to discuss Respondent's problems. In light of so many unacceptable evaluations from so many observers, Respondent's analysis is rejected. While testifying concerning her reading groups, Respondent demonstrated a lack of understanding of the threefold rotating group concept based on individual student assessments by stating that she had created a fourth group for four new Nicaraguan students who spoke no English merely because they entered her class in the middle of the year and that she had created the fourth group on the theory that the new students would have to start with the first work book in the first grade series. Respondent has had admitted in evidence her grade book for the 1983- 1984 term. It does not in every instance corroborate Petitioner's witnesses' testimony. It evidences at least one weekly grade in each subject but each subject is on a different page. This finding does not, however, significantly diminish or impugn the credibility of a number of Petitioner's witnesses who observed that Respondent kept insufficient grades. In making this determination considerable weight is attached to Respondent's own testimony that she chose to record only one weekly grade instead of recording all test and progress scores by date of the item graded. Her voluntary election to use one weekly grade per subject over grades on all items falls short of the prescription assigned to her. Respondent maintained that evaluations of her performance are clouded by the evaluators' failure to take into account the many problems inherent in anyone educating the Chapter One child. This premise is not accepted. Six of other Kinloch Park Elementary teachers of larger Chapter One first grade classes managed adequately in the 1983-1984 term. Mrs. Lucy Williams, Respondent's witness, testified that it should be easier to teach Chapter One students because there are less subjects and fewer students in classes under such a program. Dr. Gray, Petitioner's Executive Director of its Division of Standards, testified by way of expert opinion that he had considered transferring Respondent to a non-Chapter One school but decided against it because the nature of the assessment system used by Dade County is a measurement of basic teaching skills and is not a measurement of only specialized skills for Chapter One classes. Petitioner did not offer Respondent the opportunity to transfer to a different (Non- Chapter One) type of class. Dr. Patrick Gray further testified that in his opinion, Respondent's first grade class in 1983-1984 was deprived of a minimal educational experience. This opinion is accepted over Respondent's assertion that a promotion of the majority of her class to second grade demonstrates her competency as a teacher. Respondent's premise is rejected in part upon Dr. Hack's testimony that even the students' Stanford Achievement Test scores would not give an accurate picture of what Respondent had successfully taught because these scores measure only all accumulated knowledge from all sources throughout broad fields of knowledge up to a specific time in each child's life. The witnesses who testified for Petitioner established the Respondent was unable to properly teach the Chapter One students.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered ratifying Respondent's dismissal without pay and denying any claims for back-pay and benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of December, 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 17th day of December, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Petition dated May 29, 2009, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
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 School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2008).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Dunaway has been a teacher with the School Board since 1988. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, she was employed under a professional service contract as a third-grade teacher at Elbridge Gale Elementary School. As a classroom teacher in Palm Beach County, Ms. Dunaway's employment is subject to the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the local teacher's union. Disciplinary action was taken against Ms. Dunaway prior to the events giving rise to this proceeding. On April 18, 2007, the School Board issued a Written Reprimand for Violation of School Board Policy 3.96, Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workplace, after a drug test administered by the School Board in 2007 showed a positive result for cocaine. In the written reprimand, Ms. Dunaway was advised that, if she failed to comply with School Board Policy 3.96, a recommendation for termination of her employment with the School Board would be issued. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, the written reprimand was placed in Ms. Dunaway's personnel file. Ms. Dunaway began using cocaine in 2003 as a result of her feelings of devastation, humiliation, and embarrassment after an ex-boyfriend sent nude pictures of her, via electronic mail, to every employee of the school at which she was a teacher. After she tested positive for cocaine in the early part of 2007, Ms. Dunaway requested and received assistance through the School Board's Employee Assistance Program, and she stopped using cocaine as a result of her successful completion in November 2007 of an intensive program at the Gratitude House Ms. Dunaway was transferred to Elbridge Gale Elementary School in August 2008. Ms. Dunaway had a strained relationship with the school principal, Gail Pasterczyk. Ms. Dunaway felt that she was subjected to frequent, intense scrutiny by Ms. Pasterczyk, and this caused Ms. Dunaway to feel uncomfortable and increasingly anxious. According to Ms. Dunaway, Ms. Pasterczyk conducted a formal evaluation of Ms. Dunaway's teaching performance on Thursday of the second week in February 2009, which was February 12, 2009. Ms. Pasterczyk was very critical of Ms. Dunaway and gave her a poor evaluation. Ms. Dunaway was very upset about the poor evaluation and, on Friday, February 13, 2009, she used cocaine for the first time since November 2007. Ms. Dunaway admitted that she took "lots of [cocaine]” but stated that she had "stopped on Friday."2 Ms. Dunaway returned to school the following Tuesday, February 17, 2009, because Monday was a holiday. According to Ms. Dunaway, she had a very bad toothache during the weekend and arranged a dentist appointment for Tuesday afternoon. She was very nervous and took Xanax, which had been prescribed for her in February, to ease her anxiety. Ms. Dunaway claimed to have taken a Xanax right before lunch on Tuesday and to have become so "inebriated" from the Xanax that she doesn't remember anything that happened after she noticed that she was slurring her speech. On Thursday, February 19, 2009, while Ms. Pasterczyk was eating lunch in the teachers' dining room, several third- grade teachers approached her and expressed their concern about Ms. Dunaway's behavior during the morning and at lunch. Ms. Pasterczyk went to Ms. Dunaway's classroom and observed Ms. Dunaway standing at the front of the classroom, slurring her words, saying inappropriate things in front of the class, and using an overhead projector, unaware that the paper she had on the projector was upside down until she was alerted to this by her third-grade students. Ms. Pasterczyk returned to her office and consulted with Britoni Garson in the School Board's employee relation’s office. Ms. Garcon sent Ms. Pasterczyk a Drug and Alcohol Documentation of Observable Behaviors form by facsimile transmittal, which Ms. Pasterczyk completed and sent back to Ms. Garson by facsimile transmittal. On the form, Ms. Pasterczyk noted that she had observed sudden changes in Ms. Dunaway's behavior, emotional behavior, nervousness, slurred speech, increased and/or loud talking, and hand tremors. Ms. Garson reviewed the documentation submitted by Ms. Pasterczyk and determined that there was reasonable cause to subject Ms. Dunaway to a drug test. Ms. Garson contacted Ms. Pasterczyk and told her that she was to go to Ms. Dunaway's classroom and accompany Ms. Dunaway to her office, where they would wait for the drug-test team to arrive. Ms. Pasterczyk did as Ms. Garson directed, and the drug test was administered to Ms. Dunaway at approximately 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 19, 2009. The results were submitted to the School Board on February 25, 2009, and were positive for cocaine and for benzodiazepines, the family of drugs within which Xanax falls. Cocaine is a mood-altering drug that raises a person's tempo and makes them more animated. Xanax is a type of tranquilizer that is prescribed for people who are nervous or who cannot sleep, and it has a calming effect. Cocaine stays in the body for two to three days, but, by the fourth day after use, the results of a drug test would be negative for cocaine, that is, the amount if cocaine would be less than 300 nanograms per milliliter. Ms. Dunaway met with Alfredo Taulh to discuss her test results, and Mr. Taulh advised her that she could challenge the results of the drug test within seven days; she did not do so. The School Board conducted an investigation and, after going through all of the pre-disciplinary steps required by the collective bargaining agreement, the Superintendent of the Palm Beach County school system issued a Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Termination from Employment dated April 24, 2009, advising Ms. Dunaway that he intended to recommend to the School Board her suspension without pay and termination of employment at the May 6, 2009, School Board meeting. Article II, Section M of the collective bargaining agreement governs the discipline of employees. Article II, Section M of the collective bargaining agreement provides in pertinent part: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. . . . * * * Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph # 7 below may be cited. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, and employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation . . . Summary Written Reprimand - A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with this Section. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension Without Pay . . . Dismissal - An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non-renewed) when appropriate in keeping with the provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. Based upon a consideration of all of the evidence presented, the proof is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, under the circumstance of this case, the School Board's decision to terminate Ms. Dunaway conforms to the progressive discipline provisions in Article II, Section M 7., of the collective bargaining agreement. Ms. Dunaway's action in ingesting large quantities of cocaine that remained in her system when she reported for work demonstrates a flagrant disregard of the School Board's policy of ensuring a drug-free workplace, a policy with which Ms. Dunaway was familiar as a result of the written reprimand she received in 2007 for her first violation of the policy. Ms. Dunaway's testimony that she did not ingest cocaine after Friday, February 13, 2009, is rejected as not credible. The drug test was administered on Thursday, February 19, 2009, and, given that cocaine is entirely dissipated from the human body within four days, Ms. Dunaway would have tested negative for cocaine if she had not ingested any of the drug since the previous Friday, six days, prior to the drug test. In order to test positive for cocaine on Thursday, Ms. Dunaway must have ingested cocaine on Monday, a school holiday, and she could have ingested cocaine at any time between Monday and Thursday. Ms. Dunaway attributed the positive test result for benzodiazepine to the Xanax she had taken to calm her anxiety about a dental appointment she had in the afternoon of Tuesday, February 17, 2009. According to Ms. Dunaway, she took the Xanax before lunch and, after realizing that her speech was slurred, remembered nothing more about the afternoon. Ms. Dunaway may have had a dental appointment on Tuesday afternoon, and she may have taken Xanax at school, but it is clear from the context of her testimony that Ms. Dunaway was referring to a lapse in memory that occurred on the day on which the drug test was administered, that is, on Thursday, February 19, 2009. The inconsistencies in Ms. Dunaway's version of the events surrounding her ingestion of cocaine and Xanax undermine the credibility of her testimony as a whole and make it difficult to credit her claim that she was not under the influence of cocaine on the day of her drug test. Even if her version of events is credited, the fact remains that she tested positive for cocaine and for benzodiazepine on Thursday, February 19, 2009. Regardless of whether her condition on that day was the result of the cocaine in her system or of the Xanax in her system or of the combination of drugs, it is reasonable to infer that her presence in a third-grade classroom when she was so impaired that she had no recollection of being there constituted a real and present danger to the students in her class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the suspension of Debra Dunaway without pay and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 29th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Each of the Petitioners is a school teacher at Rosenwald Middle School in Bay County, Panama City, Florida. Celestine Cherry has a total of twenty-four years of teaching experience, all of which have been in the Bay County school system. She has taught home economics and physical education at Rosenwald Middle School for the last nine of those years. Ida Conner has had twenty which have been in Bay County. She began at Rosenwald teaching language arts and U.S. history in 1988. Albert Harris has had fourteen years of teaching experience, all but one of which have been in Bay County. He has a BS degree in biology and is certified to teach science to grades seven through twelve. Grace Bryan has had twenty time of the hearing, she had been teaching at Rosenwald for fifteen years. She is an ESE teacher who is certified in the area of mental retardtion. Carol Love became the assistant principal at Rosenwald in 1989 and was promoted to principal of Rosenwald in 1990. During the 1989-90 school year, Love performed teacher evaluations of the four Petitioners and rated each as unsatisfactory. It is these unsatisfactory evaluations which the Petitioners allege were the result of racial discrimination. Love taught for eighteen years at all levels and has been an administrator since 1986. She holds a Masters Degree in Education and had served as assistant principal for three years at Rutherford High School prior to her assignment to Rosenwald. Jack Simonson was the superintendent of the Bay County schools from November 22, 1988, to November 16, 1992. The Bay County School Board is the entity ultimately responsible for the operation of the schools of that county and is the Petitioners' employer. One of Simonson's major campaign promises in seeking election as superintendent was to rigorously evaluate school administrators and employees. After his election, he regularly reminded the administrators of his desire that they conduct accurate evaluations. During his term as superintendent, Simonson strictly pursued the evaluation of district administrators. This policy resulted in the non-renewal of four white administrators, who either returned to the classroom or left the school system. He reduced one black administrator from principal to assistant principal. No black administrators were returned to the classroom or non-renewed. Except for his demand for rigorous evaluations, Simonson took no part in the 1989-90 annual evaluations of the Petitioners. When Carol Love began as assistant principal at Rosenwald in 1989, she worked for Eli Campbell, the principal. The other assistant principal was Lynn Stryker. Campbell is black and Stryker is white. The Bay County School District uses the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS), which is a Florida Department of Education approved method for teacher evaluation. Love is a certified FPMS evaluator. The FPMS identifies effective and ineffective teacher behaviors. The evaluator's responsibility is to observe whether or not the teacher exhibits these behaviors during the periods of observation. The actual observations are noted on a summative form and are then transferred to the evaluation form. A tallying of the observations determines whether or not the teacher receives a satisfactory or unsatisfactory evaluation. The FPMS evaluation instrument predetermines which behaviors are effective and which are ineffective. These decisions are not made by the evaluator. The evaluator merely notes the behaviors observed. Bay County teachers are all given in includes copies of the evaluation instruments. The teachers are therefore aware, at the beginning of each school year, of the behavior which will be observed, and whether or not they are effective or ineffective under the FPMS. For the 1989-90 evaluations, Campbell assigned one teachers to himself and one previously taught with Karl Elliott, who is white, and Conner, who is black, she felt uncomfortable in evaluating these two teachers, and therefore requested Love do their annual evaluations. In addition, the two assistant principals thought it best to keep departments together for the purpose of evaluation. It was agreed that Bryan and Laticia Washington, both of whom are black, would be assigned to Love, so that she would then be evaluating the entire EMH Department. All of these proposed changes in evaluations were discussed with Mr. Campbell at the administrators' regular Monday morning meeting and he gave his approval for these changes to be made. In addition to the unsatisfactory evaluations of the Petitioners, Love also gave unsatisfactory evaluations in 1989-90 to Karl Elliott, Fran Walters, Wayne Davidson, and Charles Clark, all of whom are white. Two black teachers, Ms. Washington and Ms. Smith, received satisfactory evaluations from Love for that same evaluation period. Campbell signed all of the evaluations and improvement notices given to the Petitioners in their annual evaluation in 1989-90. It was not until some time later that he raised some procedural objections to the improvement notices. None of these procedural objections are at issue in this matter. For the 1989-90 school year, Simonson assigned Assistant Superintendent Glenda Hamby to evaluate Campbell. Prior to the beginning of the 1989-90 school year, Simonson determined that teacher evaluations at Rosenwald had not been appropriately conducted for the 1988-89 school year. By a memo dated August 1, 1989, Simonson gave specific directions to Campbell regarding Campbell's performance and the expectations regarding Campbell's administration of Rosenwald for the 1989-90 school year. Campbell clearly was on notice that big improvements were expected or else Campbell would be removed as principal of Rosenwald. Rather than making a genuine effort to improve his administration at Rosenwald, Campbell instead embarked on a campaign of public challenges to Simonson, agitated the faculty and the black community to help him keep his position as principal, failed to acknowledge deficiencies in his performance, and publicly alleged that his problems were the result of racism. Campbell was unhappy that Love had been assigned to Rosenwald and his relationship with her was markedly uncooperative. Campbell publicly aired his allegations of racism, going so far as to discuss them on television. Hamby's unsatisfactory evaluation of Campbell was the final factor that resulted in his removal as principal at Rosenwald and his reassignment within the Bay County School District. Love's evaluations of the Petitioners for the 1989-90 school year were consistent with the requirements of the FPMS system. She conducted several classroom observations of each Petitioner and based the teacher assessments, professional development plans and improvement notices on the observations. Cherry received an overall assessment of unsatisfactory based on deficiencies in the areas of Instructional Organization and Development and Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal. A professional development plan was given which further identified the specific goals and strategies for correcting the deficiencies. Finally, improvement notices were given that specifically defined the unsatisfactory performance, the improvement desired and the assistance to be provided to the teacher for achieving that improvement. Cherry was unsatisfactory for her use of incorrect English in the classroom, inadequate verbal and nonverbal communication skills, inadequate instructional organization and development, and inappropriate and/or lack of supervision in class. She refused to accept the validity of the criticisms and failed to do any of the suggested strategies for improvement. Instead, Cherry took the position that the evaluations were incorrect and were based on racism. In May, 1990, Love went to Cherry's class in response to a complaint from a teacher and a student. She discovered that the student's were engaged in writing and turning in to Cherry letters directed to Love concerning Cherry's unsatisfactory evaluation and her quality of teaching. Love sent Cherry from the room and conducted an investigation of the incident. As a result, Cherry received two letters of reprimand for these actions in her classroom. While Cherry did grieve these two letters of reprimand, the grievances were denied after binding arbitration. Cherry has received unsatisfactory evaluations from Love in each school year since the 1989-90 school year. Cherry continues to believe that the evaluations and reprimands are the result of racism. To support this belief, Cherry also cites to an incident during a school picture when Love told her to sit on the ground, a time when Love told Cherry not to read her newspaper during faculty meetings, and an occasion when Love required Cherry to get to her class room in a timely fashion. In fact, the great weight of evidence is contrary to Cherry's allegations of racism and no racial content in these incidents has been shown. Cherry maintains that the deficiencies noted in the evaulations are incorrect and are pretexts for discrimination. In reviewing the actual Summative Observation Instruments upon which Cherry's evaluations were based and in comparing those observations with Cherry's demeanor as a witness at hearing, it is found that some of the unsatisfactory observations regarding communication, verbal and nonverbal, were evident in this proceeding. Specifically, Cherry did not use grammatically correct English, was at times vague and rambling, maintained a hostile posture, and was verbally hostile and caustic. The observations which underlay the evaluations appear to be supported by the evidence and are not pretexts for discrimination. Conner received an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory with areas of deficiency in Instruction Organization and Development, Knowledge/Presentation of Subject Matter, and Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal. Conner also received a Professional Development Plan with goals and strategies for remediating the deficiencies and three improvement notices which set forth a description of the unsatisfactory performance, improvement desired, and assistance to be provided to assist Conner in improving the unsatisfactory performance areas. Conner was unsatisfactory for verbal and nonverbal communication; for failure to begin instruction promptly, handle materials efficiently, maintain academic focus, conduct beginning and ending review, question effectively, recognize and amplify responses, and give appropriate praise; and for her inability to use English correctly. Conner also refused to accept the validity of the criticisms and failed to carry out any of the strategies for improvement. Conner took the position that the evaluations were incorrect and were based on racism. Conner has received unsatisfactory evaluations from Love in each school year since 1989-90. The inadequacies remained the same. Because of her failure to remediate these deficiencies, Conner was removed from teaching language arts and history and was reassigned to teach alternative education for the 1990-91 school year. Conner suggests that her charge of racism is supported by several incidents. Conner asserts that Love took money from her alternative education budget to buy computers to go in other classrooms. This is simply not so. Conner also believes that Love's racist motivation resulted in omission of an award for Conner in September 1990, in interception of a note that Conner sent by way of a student, in the failure to invite Conner to a school literary luncheon in January, 1993, and in the failure to invite Conner to an in program on Macintosh computers in December, 1992. The evidence is to the contrary in each of these incidents. No evidence of racial content or motivation has been presented in any of these incidents. Conner also maintains that the deficiencies noted in the evaluations are incorrect and are pretexts for discrimination. In reviewing the actual Summative Observation Instruments upon which Conner's evaluations were based and in comparing those observations with Conner's demeanor as a witness at hearing, it is found that some of the unsatisfactory behaviors regarding communication, verbal and nonverbal, were evident in this proceeding. Specifically, Conner did not use grammatically correct English, mispronounced basic words, and was at times loud, hostile, and sarcastic. The observations which underlay the evaluations appear to be supported by the evidence and are not pretexts for discrimination. Harris received an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory for the 1989- 90 school year. Deficiencies were noted in the areas of Instructional Organization and Development, Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal, and Personal Qualities. As with the other Petitioners, a professional development plan and improvement notices were provided. Harris was unsatisfactory for his inability to question effectively, to recognize and amplify responses, to give appropriate praise and to express enthusiasm and interest verbally and through body behavior. He was also frequently tardy to his classes thus leaving students unsupervised and he needed improvement in classroom behavior management. As did Cherry and Conner, Harris refused to accept the validity of the criticisms and failed to do any of the suggested strategies for improvement. Harris also believed that the unsatisfactory evaluation was the product of racism. Harris complained that he could not effectively teach science from a regular classroom as he had done since 1987. At the beginning of the 1990-91 school year, Love assigned Harris to a science room, which gave him better access to the science closet for equipment and a demonstration table, running water, and an outside access door. Harris' teaching did not improve and he has been evaluated as unsatisfactory in every subsequent year. He was finally reassigned to teach alternative education. To support his claim that these unsatisfactory evaluations are the result of racial discrimination, Harris cites to two incidents in which he thought Love was rude and abrasive. One incident occurred when Love chided Harris in the hallway about being late for his class; the other occurred in the gymnasium just before an assembly when Love told Harris to "move it" and to "get those kids in line." No evidence was offered to show a racially discriminatory motivation for these incidents. Harris also maintains that the deficiencies noted in the evaluations are incorrect and are pretexts for discrimination. In examining the Summative Observation Instruments and in comparing those observations with Harris' demeanor as a witness at hearing, it is found the some of those same unsatisfactory behaviors were evident in the hearing. Specifically, Harris spoke in a low monotone, showing no enthusiasm or interest. He was lethargic, made no eye contact, and had a flat affect. The observations which underlay the evaluations appear to be supported by the evidence and are not pretexts for discrimination. Bryan received an overall unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1989-90 school year, with deficiencies noted in Instructional Organization and Development, Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal, and Management of Student Conduct. Bryan was given a Professional Development Plan and improvement notices. She also believes that the unsatisfactory evaluation was the result of a racial motivation, but she, unlike the other Petitioners, took advantage to the suggested strategies for improvement by reviewing tapes and research, exploring new methods, practicing those improved behaviors, and attending a class. Bryan's efforts to improve were successful and she has not received another unsatisfactory evaluation from Love. Bryan tendered no competent evidence to show a racially discriminatory motivation for the unsatisfactory rating given in 1989-90. The improvement notices given to the Petitioners required "Improvement will be demonstrated by October 1, 90." The stated consequences if improvements were not made was "Progressive discipline which could lead to dismissal." No disciplinary actions have been taken against the Petitioners at any time since the initial evaluations. Love has consistently reproved both black and white teachers for being late to class. In dealing with the faculty, staff and students of Rosenwald, Love is direct, firm, aggressive, and at times, abrasive, regardless of the race of the party with whom she is dealing. It is not unusual for her to call out instructions to teachers or students in the common areas of the campus. The assistant principals under Love are Stryker and Linwood Barnes. Barnes is black. Both have observed Love's interactions with students and faculty on a daily basis. Neither have ever observed Love to treat black students or teachers in a manner different than that with which she treats white students and faculty. Petitioners assert that Love acknowledged her prejudice to Bronkelly Porter, a black student at Rosenwald. In fact, the incident cited occurred after Campbell had rallied students, teachers and the black community in an effort to retain his job. Because of Campbell's accusations against Love, she was regularly harassed by students. The event in question occurred in the cafeteria when she was challenged by Porter, a student with whom she had had problems in the past. Bronkelly yelled out to Love a question about whether she was prejudiced. Love spontaneously and sarcastically said "Yeah, right, Bronkelly, I am." While it is recognized that Love, in an off used a poor choice of words, this statement is not taken to be probative evidence of racial prejudice on the part of Love. Love also made certain statements while counseling Michelle Ward regarding her discipline problems. Specifically, Love told Ward that "if she'd hang around with her own kind then she would not get in so much trouble." The statement was not made in reference to the race of any individual, but instead was intended to get Ward to reconsider the group she was running with in an attempt to decrease Ward's discipline problems. The greater weight of the probative and material evidence establishes that Love at no time took any discriminatory action against the Petitioners on account of their race. Further, there is even less evidence of racial discrimination on the part of Simonson or the Bay County School Board. Petitioners have simply failed to prove their case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order denying and dismissing the claims for relief filed by Albert Harris, Celestine Cherry, Grace D. Bryan and Ida Conner. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 1st day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 92-1698, 92-1699, 92-1700, and 92-2304 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-6(1-6); 7(6); 9(7); 15(18); and 17(13). Proposed findings of fact 8, 10, 16, 21-23, 26-32, and 37-39 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 11-14, 20, 25, and 33 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 18, 19, 24, and 34-36 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondents Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(9); 2(10); 3(6&11); 4(12); 5(13); 6(15); 7(23); 14(39); 15(35); 16(34); 18(42); 20(39); 22(40); and 24 & 25(14). Proposed findings of fact 8-13, 17, 21, 23, 28, and 29 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 19, 26, and 27 are irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 30 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie Holland Attorney at Law 924 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Franklin Harrison Attorney at Law 304 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32402 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3) (d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact A. 1. One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. 2. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and “unacceptable”; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.! A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. 3. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "setisfactory” and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) anda follow-up, “for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. 4, In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. 5. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is provided a PGT and given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. 6. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFBE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teecher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. 7, The performance probation could end early, before 90 days have passed. This occurs when, during probation, the teacher is deemed to have mastered all the required indicators. At that point, should it come, the teacher receives a satisfactory performance rating, and the evaluative process is terminated. 8. ‘Within 14 days after the end of probation, assuming the process has not ended sooner as just described, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. 9. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators. The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. 10. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "TL,A.1." 11. Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.” Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.? B. 12. At all times material to this case, Respondent Leopoldo Mutis ("Mutis") was a teacher in the District. From 1999 until April 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Mutis taught middle school Spanish and ESOL at Key Biscayne K-8 Center ("Key Biscayne"). 13. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Mutis in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator October 23, 2003 Ana Maria Rasco, Principal, Key Biscayne November 17, 2003 Ms. Rasco January 13, 2004 Blanca Herrera-Torres, Assistant Principal, Key Biscayne February 18, 2004 Cathy Williams, Assistant Principal, Key Biscayne March 15, 2004 Ms. Rasco 14. The Board contends that Mutis failed ali five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation for the record, the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Mutis had failed: Ti-lt-05 Gl-1s-08 02-18-06 G3-15-04 ; | | x | O1-13-04 [ TvEt_[ vat ver Ti-17-03 CU td 04 x | x [x 2-28-08 03-15-04 x 15. Because Ms. Rasco identified five performance deficiencies on November 17, 2003, Mutis was placed on 90-day performance probation, effective November 26, 2003, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Ms. Rasco held a CFR on November 25, 2003, to review with Mutis the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Mutis was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a "Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP)," dated November 26, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Ms. Rasco charged Mutis with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: IV.A.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.2, VI.C.2, and VI.C.4. (These five indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Mutis was given a PIP, anc a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. 16. Following the confirmatory evaluation on March 15, 20C4, based on which Ms. Rasco identified 13 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Ms. Rasco notified the superintendent thet Mutis had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Mutis's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Ms. Rasco's recommendation and notified Mutis, by letter dated March 31, 2004, of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Mutis's employment contract. On April 14, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. Cc. 17. In general terms, the ultimate issue in this case, according to Section 1012.33(3) (d)2.b., Florida Statutes, is whether Mutis corrected noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation. In view of the issue, the initial "of record" evaluation of November 17, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the five "noted performance deficiencies" that Mutis needed to correct.’ Indeed, the Board cannot terminate Mutis's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation, but rather must focus exclusively on those five particular deficiencies which Mutis was given 90 calendar days to correct, for reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law. Stated more precisely, then, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the five specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Mutis on November 26, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. 18. The two evaluations that were conducted during Mutis's probation (on January 13, 2004, and February 18, 2004) are of present interest mainly because they show Mutis making steady progress toward eliminating the noted deficiencies. By January 13, 2004, according to Ms. Herrera-Torres, Mutis had corrected three of the five noted deficiencies (Indicators IV.A.3, VI.C.2, and VI.C.4), leaving just two (Indicators IV.A.5 and V.B.2). When Ms. Williams evaluated Mutis on February 18, 2004, she found that the teacher had corrected four of the five noted performance deficiencies, failing him only on Indicator IV.A.5. 19. The evidence presented at hearing is insufficient, however, to support findings that Mutis was, in fact, deficient 10 with respect to (a) Indicators IV.A.5 and V.B.2 as determined by Ms. Herrera-Torres or (b) Indicator IV.A.5 as determined by Ms. Williams. As for the evaluation of January 13, 2004, it is found that the purpose of the learning task observed by Ms. Herrera-Torres that day was obviously to teach students rules relating to gender identification in the Spanish language. Thus, Indicator IV.A.5, which requires that the purpose or importance of learning tasks be clear to learners, was met. Regarding Indicator V.B.2, which requires that wait time be used as appropriate to enhance the development of thinking skills, Ms. Herrera-Torres gave no testimony at hearing; and, her cor.temporaneous written summary of Mutis's alleged deficiency in this area merely states, in conclusory fashion, that Mutis afforded students insufficient “wait time to think and develop answers to questions." A subjective opinion, devoid of facts, is not enough to justify an ultimate determination of insufficient performance in this regard. 20. As for the evaluation of February 18, 2004, it is found that Mutis informed the class observed by Ms. Williams that he intended to review a previous lesson or lessons. Having told his students that the purpose of the learning task was review, Mutis satisfied Indicator IV.A.5. 21. Thus, based on the evidence presented, it is found that Mutis's performance probation in connection with the five 11 noted deficiencies should have been terminated on January 14, 2004, or February 18, 2004, at the latest.° 22. As it happened, however, Mutis’s probation was not prematurely terminated, and Ms. Rasco performed a confirmatory evaluation on March 15, 2004. She found that Mutis had corrected two of the five noted performance deficiencies, giving Mutis a passing grade on Indicators IV.A.3 and VI.C.2. The remaining three deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "@" symbcl. It is to these three allegedly uncorrected deficiencies thet our attention now must turn. 23. The Board contends, based on Ms. Rasco's confirmatory evaluation of March 15, 2004, that Mutis was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: IV.A.5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. V.B.2: Wait time is used as appropriate to enhance the development of thinking skills. vI.C.4: Learners receive specific feedback when learning tasks and/or learning outcomes are completed. 24. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Muzis's performance on March 15, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Mutis failed adequately to perform the three 12 indicators just mentioned—consists of Ms. Rasco's testimony, together with a memorandum dated March 15, 2004, that Ms. Rasco prepared for Assistant Superintendent Essie Pace. 25. At the final hearing, Ms. Rasco recounted what she had seen on March 14, 2004, when she observed Mutis in the classroom for 50 minutes: [1] This lesson—this lesson was atrocious. [2] First of all, Mr. Mutis walked into class three minutes late, the children were already seated in class. [3] When he walked in late, and I found this particularly offensive to the students because Mr. Mutis had been free for the two periods prior, this was fourth period, he had been free during second and third period so for him to have come in late was very difficult for me to understand. [4] Secondly, he was unprepared. He did not have his lesson plans readily available. He had to rummage through the stacks of papers on his desk to find his lesson plans. [5] This was a Monday morning, he had been out Friday, and he had proceeded to teach the lesson that the children had already done on Friday with the substitute. [6] Several students started to complain they could not understand why they had to repeat the lesson that they had already done on Friday, he was asking them to read some pages from a story, and they kept on explaining to him that they had already done it. He didn't explain to the children his rationale for doing—-for having them do it again, he just went through the lesson. 13 [7] There was an inordinate amount of off- task behavior. There was one student——and in this class there were maybe seven or eight students, this was a small class, there was one student who spent a long time catapulting a pen. There was another student who had birthday balloons attached to the back of her chair, and she was playing with the birthday balloons, fidgeting with the balloons for an extended period of time. [8] There was another student who was doing his writing assignment on a little, must have been a little five, maybe, a five by eight sheet of paper even though he told the students at the beginning of the lesson to take out their folders, this child was writing on a small piece of paper, and he didn’t address it. [9] Q. Did he address any of that off-task behavior? [10] A. He did not address any of these behaviors, he did not redirect the students at any point and time. [11] Again, the questioning techniques, he was asking questions without, again, any regard to the student responses, without probing. 12] Some students, I think, were speaking in Spanish, and, again, this was an English lesson, and yet they were never redirected to the English language. This one was just— 13] Q. They were in his class to learn English? [14] A. This was an English class. Students were not given any feedback. Sometimes he asked questions, if he didn't get a response he would answer, he would 14 answer the question himself and go to the next question. is Q. Could you tell whether he appeared to care about the class? 16 A. No, it's like he had given up. 17 Q. Do children react to that? 18 A. Children were definitely reacting [19] Q. His children were? 20} A. Yes, I mean, he was not getting any cooperation or engagement from the children. Final Hearing Transcript at 74-76 (numbering added) . 26. In her contemporaneous memorandum of March 15, 2004, which supplements and explains the foregoing testimony, Ms. Rasco stated in relevant part as follows: A chronology of observations and results for the above employee is provided for your review. Data indicate that this employee has not demonstrated corrective action. Of particular concern during the confirmatory observation in Seventh/Eighth Grades Language Arts Through ESOL was: II.A.1 The teacher entered the classroom three minutes after the bell signaling the beginning of fourth period had rung. The learners had already entered the classroom. The teacher did not have his lesson plans readily available and had to take time to locate them. There was no rationale for not being prepared since the teacher did not have students in his class during second or third period. 15 TII.B.4 At the beginning of the lesson when the teacher instructed the learners to turn to pages 162-163, three different learners told the teacher they had already read those pages with the substitute teacher on Friday. The learners did not understand why they had to repeat the assignment and the teacher did not give them any reason for repeating the lesson. V.A.1 When learners attempted to develop associations using their own experiences, the teacher curtailed this experience by allowing interruptions from other learners and letting several learners speak at the same time. V.C.1 No concepts that required critical analysis or problem-solving were developed. For example, the teacher asked, "Why is it important to learn about people who have difficulties in life?" He did not get a response and proceeded to ask, "Should everyone learn sign language?" V1.A.2 Learner engagement was not monitored. There were numerous instances of off-task behavior throughout the lesson which the teacher did not address. One learner was catapulting a pen, second learner was daydreaming and not following along as others read orally, a third learner was fidgeting with her birthday balloons, and a fourth learner was writing on a 3"x8" sheet of paper instead of her notebook as the teacher had initially instructed. The teacher never re-directed the off-task behaviors during the lesson. v1l.C.4 At various points throughout the lesson, several learners made comments and responded to questions in Spanish. At no time did the teacher redirect the responses to English, assist the learners in making their comments in English, or provide feedback. 16 27. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Mutis's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing evidence, for that is all the proof there is on the subject.® 28. Ms. Rasco did not explain how she had applied the PACES indicators to her classroom observations of Mutis to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. 29. The three indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not so much standards upon which to base a judgment as factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. Ifa particular indicator-condition (e.g- the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." 30. But the indicator-conditions are not objective facts, equally perceivable by all observers; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical (or observed) facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called 17 "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions” of law and fact. 31. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Ms. Rasco observed on March 15, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Mutis's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the purpose of learning tasks was "clear" to the students (Indicator IV.A.5),/ or whether “wait time" was used appropriately to enhance "thinking skills" (Indicator V.B.2).° This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. 32. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of 18 the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across-~- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. 33. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be stendards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to provide specific feedback upon the conclusion of learning tasks (Indicator VI.C.4) or to enhance the development of thinking skills through appropriate use of wait time (Indicator V.B.2).° 34. Other standards might be definitional. For example, definitions of terms such as "wait time” and "thinking skills" would facilitate the application of Indicator V.B.2. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether wait time enhances the development of thinking skills. 35. However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- 19 conditions are present or absent in a given situation-—and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. 36. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the three relevant indicators were extant in Mutis's classroom on March 15, 2004, or not. E. 37. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Mutis had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. As mentioned, the only evidence of Mutis's post-probation teaching performance consists of Ms. Rasco's testimony about her observation of Mutis for 50 minutes on March 15, 2004, which was quoted above, along with her contemporaneous memorandum to Ms. Pace. 38. Ms. Rasco's contemporaneous memorandum sheds light on her testimony by clarifying which of the indicators was implicated by particular observations. Not much of this 20 evidence, as will be shown below, is relevant to Mutis's performance in relation to the three indicators on which termination could be based. (The discussion that follows refers to che numbered answers as quoted in paragraph 25 supra.) 39. Answers 2, 3, and 4 pertain to purported deficiencies with regard to Indicator II.A.1.*° Having been rated unsatisfactory in this area for the first time on March 15, 2004, Mutis cannot be fired for these alleged deficiencies. This testimony, therefore, is irrelevant. 40. Answers 5 and 6 relate to alleged deficiencies with respect to Indicator III.B.4.*' Having been rated unsatisfactory in this area for the first time on March 15, 2004, Mutis cannot be fired for these alleged deficiencies. This testimony, therefore, is irrelevant. 41. Answers 7, 8, and 10 relate to alleged deficiencies pertaining to Indicator VI.A.2.° Having been rated unsatisfactory in this area for the first time on March 15, 2004, Mutis cannot be fired for these alleged deficiencies. This testimony, therefore, is irrelevant. 42. Answers 16, 18, and 20 were not clearly associated with any particular deficiency. The undersigned finds this testimony unhelpful in determining whether Mutis was unsatisfactorily performing in the areas of Indicators IV.A.5, V.B.2, or VI.C.4. 21 43. Answer 1 is simply a conclusion, which the undersigned finds unhelpful as a basis for independent fact-finding. 44. This leaves Answers 12 and 14, which relate to alleged deficiencies in Indicator VI.C.4, which is a noted performance deficiency upon which termination could be based. The thrust of this testimony is that Mutis addressed some students in Spanish, rather than English. Even if Mutis did this, however, such does not implicate the Indicator in question, which is concerned with the provision of specific feedback upon the completion of learning tasks or outcomes, because Indicator VI.C.4 is silent as to the means of communication. Beyond that, Ms. Rasco offered the naked conclusion that Mutis failed to provide feedback, which merely tells the undersigned how to rule and her.ce is unhelpful. 45. In sum, the evidence is insufficient for the undersigned to find, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Mutis's performance on March 15, 2004, was deficient with regard to Indicators IV.A.5, V.B.2, and VI.C.4. 46. As important as the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Mutis's performance on March 15, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Mutis's 22 classroom that day, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Mutis's performance, to determine whether the indicator-conditions were met or not. 47. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and thus it would be unfair to apply them to Mutis.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 For Respondent: Leopoldo Mutis, pro se 4001 North 67th Terrace Hollywood, Florida 33024
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Mutis of all charges brought against him in this preceeding; (b) providing that Mutis be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Mutis back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2004. 37
