The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, including Boca Raton Community High School (BRCHS). Respondent is employed by the School Board as a custodian, but is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these proceedings. As a custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the SEIU/Florida Public Services Union (SEIU) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and SEIU (SEIU Contract). Article 7 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Employees Contractual Rights." Section 2 of this article provides as follows: Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee status shall be continuous unless the Superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). In the event the Superintendent seeks termination of a continuous employee, the School Board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined in accordance with Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). Article 8 of the SEIU Contract is entitled, "Management Rights," and it provides, in pertinent part, that the School Board has the right "to manage and direct its employees, establish reasonable rules and procedures, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons." Article 17 of the SEIU Contract provides as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Union, 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 the Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written charge of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee as soon as possible after the investigation has begun. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Union representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Union representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article and his/her Union representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and the Union representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action and concerning the appropriateness of the proposed disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. 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 if these previous actions are reasonably related to the existing charge. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Article, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay, or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent and final action taken by the District. 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 Board rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee, unless, there is another reasonably related act by the same employee within a twenty four (24) month period. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file upon a receipt of a copy to the employee by certified mail. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay by the School Board may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Article. The notice and specifics of the suspension shall be placed in writing, dated, and signed by the giver of the suspension and a copy provided to the employee by certified mail. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Chapter 119 and 231.291 of the Florida Statutes. An employee may be dismissed when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable law. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has/have been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. However, if the disciplinary action(s) is/are to be taken by the District, then the employee shall have a choice of appeal between either the Department [sic] of Administrative Hearings in accordance with Florida Statutes or the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. Such choice must be exercised within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notification of disciplinary action being taken, and the District notified accordingly. If the grievance procedure is selected, the grievance shall be initiated at Step Three. Prior to her suspension pursuant to Article 7, Section 2, of the SEIU Contract in December 2008, Respondent was assigned to BRCHS. Respondent started working as a custodian at BRCHS in or around 2006. At the time, she was a full-time employee, with hours from 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Respondent had poor attendance as a full-time employee. In or around December 2007, at Respondent's request, the School Board changed her status to a permanent part-time employee, with a four-hour, instead of an eight-hour, work day, five days a week. She continued to work an evening shift. It was hoped that the change to part-time status would result in improvement in Respondent's attendance. Respondent's attendance, however, did not improve. Consequently, on December 3, 2007, Cheryl Lombard, an assistant principal at BRCHS, sent Respondent the following memorandum concerning "[e]mployment [e]xpectations": In order to improve your job performance the following directives must be adhered to in order for the school operations to run efficiently: You are directed to report to duty at your assigned time 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, April 10, 2009. You are directed to work your complete four-hour shift from 4:00-8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You are directed to bring a doctor's note for every absence stating the dates you were under the doctor's care and that you have been released to perform all job responsibilities without restrictions. You are directed to notify the lead custodian/night administrator anytime you must leave campus during duty hours. You are directed to complete a TDE for all absences, late arrivals, and early dismissals from work. You are directed to follow your duty schedule. You are directed to clean all assigned areas in accordance with the procedures outlined by the District. You are directed to complete all assignments given in accordance with directions given. You are directed to refrain from using your cell phone except during your fifteen- minute break. In case of emergency, please contact Dr. Lombard. You are to report to the head custodian/designee upon your arrival on duty. You are directed to sign out with the lead custodian every night. You are directed to speak to all staff members and others in a professional manner while on District property or on duty. You are directed to refrain from threatening fellow custodians. Failure to follow any of the above mentioned directives will be considered insubordination and may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. In December 2007, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 9.75 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 9.5 hours. On January 25, 2008, Ms. Lombard issued Respondent a verbal reprimand (which was followed-up by a "written notation"). The written notation read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a Written Notation of a Verbal Reprimand for Violation of School Board Policy 1.013 as it pertains to insubordination for failure to follow Directives Re: Attendance. Specifically, you have had excessive tardies and absences. Furthermore, you have failed to produce a doctor's note stating that you were under his/her care, as was required per the memo you received on December 3, 2007. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Further, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination. In January 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 22 hours. On February 6, 2008, Ms. Lombard issued Respondent a written reprimand, which read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a Written Reprimand for insubordination Re: Attendance after our January 25, 2008 meeting. Specifically, on January 28 and February 4 you were absent and on January 30 you were 30 minutes late for your four (4) hour shift. Your conduct violated School Board Policy 1.013. Regardless of the circumstances that may have brought them about, such inappropriate actions and/or inactions on your part do not reflect positively on your position. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Furthermore, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar action in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. Respondent was out on medical/sick leave for a total of approximately six weeks in February and March 2008. On April 17, 2008, Ms. Lombard issued Respondent another written reprimand. This written reprimand read as follows: This correspondence is being given to you as a Written Reprimand for insubordination regarding attendance after our April 15, 2008, meeting. Specifically, on April 16, you were absent for two and one half hours of your four hour shift. Your conduct violated School Board Policy 1.013. Regardless of the circumstances that may have brought them about, such inappropriate actions and/or inactions on your part do not reflect positively on your position. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Furthermore, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar action in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. In April 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 21 hours. In May 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 36 hours. Respondent's brother and father passed away in April and May 2008, respectively. In June 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 51.5 hours. In July 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 21 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 15 hours. 24, Up to and including August 6, 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 7.5 hours that month. On August 6, 2008, the principal of BRCHS issued Respondent a written directive, which read as follows: On August 6, 2008, you met with Ms. Lombard, Assistant Principal, and HR Manager Bob Pinkos to discuss the seriousness of your chronic absenteeism and tardiness. During that meeting the Written Directive provided you on December 3, 2007 addressing attendance at work and compliance [with] the duty schedule was discussed. Furthermore, the following disciplinary actions have been issued related to insubordination for failure to adhere to the December 3, 2007 directives. January 28, 2007 [sic] Verbal Reprimand with Written Notation issued for failure to follow the December 3, 2007 directive. February 6, 2008, Written Reprimand issued for insubordination for failure to follow the December 3, 2007 directive. April 17, 2008, a second Written Reprimand issued for insubordination for failure to follow the December 3, 2007 directive. A copy of the December 3, 2007 directive is enclosed for your review. Although you have received several disciplinary actions advising you to comply with the December 3, 2007 [directive] your behavior with respect to attendance at work and compliance [with] your duty schedule continues to fail to meet expectations. Future similar incidents, to include those that may occur beyond the date of this directive and related to failing to follow the December 3, 2007 directive, will be considered insubordination and subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated as it would positively impact the operation at Boca Raton Community High School. The remainder of the month of August 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 22.25 hours and out on medical/sick leave a total of 3.5 hours. In September 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 33.25 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 4 hours. In October 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 23.25 hours. She was also out on medical/sick leave a total of 5 hours. At the end of October 2008, following the completion of an "administrative personnel investigation of Respondent's "behavior with respect to attendance at work and compliance [with her] duty schedule," a "pre-disciplinary meeting" was held at which Respondent was given the opportunity to "explain or rebut the outcome of the investigation." At the meeting, Respondent acknowledged that she had "missed lots of time from work," but she claimed that she had "been trying to improve her attendance." In November 2008, Respondent was absent without leave and/or pay a total of 24.25 hours. Respondent was out on medical/sick leave for her entire four hour shift on December 1, 2008. On December 2, 2008, she was absent without leave and/or pay .25 hours. The following day, she was suspended. Respondent's poor attendance has adversely affected others at BRCHS. Sometimes, the work Respondent was responsible for was done, in her absence, by the other custodians at the school, which "created a bit of unrest" because these custodians also had their own work to do. On other occasions, when Respondent was absent, the work she was assigned went undone, which created a "problem for teachers [and their students] when they c[a]me in the next morning" and had to deal with classrooms that were not cleaned.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonia E. Hill-Howard, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Karen Gadson 1711 Wedgewood Plaza Drive Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) and support facilities in Miami-Dade County. Respondent is employed by the School Board as a school bus aide. She is currently assigned to the John Schee Transportation Center. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board on September 8, 1992. She was terminated, effective October 31, 1995, for having been absent without authorization for three consecutive days. The School Board rehired Respondent on May 3, 2000, and assigned her to the Northwest Transportation Center. On October 11, 2002, Respondent was given her current assignment at the John Schee Transportation Center. As a school bus aide employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). Article II, Section 3, of the AFSCME Contract provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION SECTION 3. The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, Local 1184, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: . . . . (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; . . . . It is understood and agreed that management possesses the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: A. Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; . . . . * * * Article XI of the AFSCME Contract is entitled, "Disciplinary Action." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled, "Due Process." It provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed, however in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee[']s record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); Letter of reprimand; Suspension/demotion; and Dismissal.[2] A Conference-for-the-Record shall be held when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated investigation to determine if formal disciplinary action should be taken (1.e., letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal). A Conference-for- the-Record in and of itself shall not be considered disciplinary.[3] The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. The employee shall have the right to Union representation in Conferences-for-the- Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. A maximum of two Union representatives may be present at a Conference-for-the Record. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notice of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled, "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade." It provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer or through the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action and to select the method of appeal. If the employee when appealing the Board action, does not select the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract[,] the Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions-in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Non-reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 4 of Article XI is entitled, "Types of Separation." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any four [sic] distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- . . . . Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Chief Personnel Officer for Human Resources a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of up to 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence.[4] Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- . . . . AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non- reappointment. Such employee may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . . As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board "rule[s], regulation[s], and [p]olic[ies]. If she does not, she may be disciplined pursuant to the AFSCME Contract.5 Among the School Board's "rule[s]" are School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. * * * School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01 addresses the subject of "[a]bsences and [l]eaves." It provides, in pertinent part, that, "[e]xcept for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave." School Board bus drivers and aides are governed by the following "[a]ttendance [p]olicy" set forth in the School Board Transportation Department's Handbook for Drivers, Aides and Operations Staff: Drivers and aides are expected to be prompt and punctual in their attendance on all workdays in accordance with the current calendar and their assigned schedule, and their contract. AUTHORIZED ABSENCES For absences to be authorized, they must be reported to the driver's or aide's Transportation Center Dispatch Office in advance. This notice shall be made at the earliest possible time, but no later than before the next scheduled report time. Even in an emergency, every possible effort must be made to inform the Dispatch Office. The supervisory staff evaluates the driver's adherence to this rule. Intent to return should be treated in the same manner. Leave forms must be completed promptly for payroll purposes. UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES Unauthorized absences are subject to disciplinary action as prescribed under existing labor contracts. If a driver or aide does not report to work within 15 minutes after the scheduled report time, or does not call in absent before the report time, the absence will be considered unauthorized. If time off is taken during a regular working school day without a supervisor's approval, this absence may also be considered unauthorized. Additionally, any employee who does not have available sick/personal time may be charged with an unauthorized absence. NOTIFICATION OF ABSENCES -Drivers and aides must notify their Transportation Center[']s Dispatch Office as soon as they have determined they cannot report to work. Drivers are not to make arrangements on their own for a substitute. All arrangements must be made by the Dispatch Office. -If a driver will not be reporting for work on regular school days, the driver must call in immediately and speak with the Dispatcher, or the Field Operations Specialist. -If a driver cannot report to work because of an emergency situation, the driver must contact the Dispatch Office as soon as possible. If the situation requires a driver to leave the area, the driver should have a relative or friend contact the office for the driver. -If the absence will occur sometime in the future, the Dispatch Office should be given as much advance notification as possible. -When the Dispatch Office is contacted, an explanation for the absence should be given along with the length of absence and estimated date of return. -If the driver is off from work for more than one day, the driver must contact the office each day, prior to the report time, with a complete update of the situation. The only times the driver does not have to contact the office on a daily basis are as follows: -Admission to a hospital as a patient -Maternity leave -A doctor's work release for a specified number of days -Extended sick leave -Approved leave of absence -Out of town CHECK-IN POLICY -All employees are expected to arrive at work on or before their scheduled report time. -Drivers and aides will be given a five minute grace period to report to work, during which no disciplinary nor financial actions will be taken. For example, if the driver or aide is scheduled to report for work at 6:00 a.m., but signs-in by 6:05 a.m., the driver or aide will be allowed to go out on the assigned route with no repercussions. -Drivers and aides who report to work 6-15 minutes after the scheduled report times will be considered "tardy." Tardy drivers and aides will be permitted to work. However, the dispatch may assign a stand-by or substitute driver or aide to the route of the tardy employee. Drivers and aides who are more than 10 minutes late, but less than 16 minutes late, will be used as substitute drivers and aides and will not be allowed to operate their regularly assigned route. For the tardy driver or aide who was replaced by a substitute or stand-by driver or aide, such driver or aide will then be assigned as substitute for other routes needing coverage, as requirements dictate. A record will be kept documenting all tardiness. Lost time will be accumulated for tardiness and employees will be docked pay in 1/2 day increments. -Drivers and aides who report to work 16 or more minutes after the scheduled report time will be considered "absent without leave" (AWOL). These persons will not be permitted to work. They will be placed on "unauthorized leave-without pay" (ULWOP) and will be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Collective Bargaining Agreement -Extenuating circumstances will be evaluated by the Center Director and, upon proper documentation, may not be held against the employee. Repeated occurrences, such as "car broke down for the third time this week," will not be considered extenuating. DOCUMENTATION It is the responsibility of the drivers and aides to report to the supervisor in order to complete and/or produce all required paperwork related to the absence on the first workday upon return to work. Failure to comply with this procedure may result in an unauthorized absence regardless of extenuating circumstances. During the time she has been assigned to the John Schee Regional Transportation Center, Respondent has had a history of poor attendance, which has adversely impacted the operations of the center. On February 21, 2003, Respondent was issued a verbal warning for an unauthorized absence. On March 20, 2003, Respondent was issued the following written warning regarding her attendance by Dr. Michael Exelbert, a Coordinator III at the John Schee Regional Transportation Center: Payroll records indicate that you have accrued 7 days of Unauthorized Leave Without Pay and/or Tardies. Records indicate you were verbally warned regarding this issue on Feb. 21, 2003. Article V, Section 27 of the contract between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and AFSCME 1184 states: "Unauthorized Absence - Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance. Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accrued sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI." Article XI, Section 4B of the contract between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and AFSCME 1184 states: "Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position - An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of up to 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence." Section 9 of the M-DCPS, Department of Transportation Handbook for Drivers, Aides and Operations Staff addresses the department's Attendance Policy. It states: " Drivers and aides are expected to be prompt and punctual in their attendance on all workdays in accordance with the current calendar and their assigned schedule, and their contract." This section addresses: 9.1-Authorized Absences, 9.2-Unauthorized Absences, 9.3- Notification of Absences, and 9.4-Check-In Policy. You are instructed to review this section of your handbook. Deficient performance exhibited by the accrual of unauthorized absences and/or tardiness negatively impacts the department, coworkers and the educational program of the students we serve. This behavior is unacceptable and must be corrected by reporting to duty when scheduled and reporting on time. With this memorandum, you are warned that future occurrences of Unauthorized Absences and/or Tardies will lead to progressive disciplinary action compliant with District policies and procedures and the contract between M-DCPS and AFSCME Local 1184. Be advised M-DCPS has a District Support Agency that may be able to assist you regarding attendance deficiencies and can be reached at . . . . You are encouraged to contact them for assistance in regards to your attendance deficiencies. Please contact me if additional information is required. Respondent signed this written warning, acknowledging receipt thereof, on March 26, 2003. On October 23, 2003, Mr. Exelbert held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent to discuss "attendance requirements." The following day, Mr. Exelbert prepared a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: A Conference-For-The-Record was held in my office on Thursday, October 23, 2003. You were asked if you were a member of the Union. You indicated that you were, but did not seek representation. Present at the meeting was Cynthia Brown, Bus Attendant, and this administrator. You were told the purpose of today's conference was to review attendance requirements. You were given a copy of the Notification of this Conference-For-The-Record. You acknowledged receiving and signing receipt for today's Conference-For-The-Record. You also received: a copy of all LWOP-U absences since your written warning and a copy of your M-DCPS screen 026 leave status dates. You received a Verbal Warning about your LWOP-U absences on February 21, 2003, and a written warning about you[r] LWOP-U absences on March 20, 2003. During those meeting the following LWOP-U absences were discussed. November 22(D), 2002. December 05(A), 06(D), 09(D), 10(D), 11(D), 20(P), 2002. February 04(P), 06(A), 11(A), 13(A), 14(P), 20(D), 24(D), 25(A), 2003. March 06(A), 10(D), 11(D), 12(D), 13(D), 2003. For today, the following LWOP-U attendance days since the Written Warning on March 20, 2003 were discussed: March 27(A), 2003. April 11(D), 17(A), 21(A), 23(D), 24(D), 2003. May 09, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 2003 (ALL Days). June 02, 03, 04, 05, 2003 (ALL Days). August 26(A), 29(A), 2003. September 04(A), 05(A), 11(A), 2003. A total of fifty occurrence of LWOP-U The seriousness of missing work and good attendance was discussed. You were given copies of Section 9 (Attendance Policy) from the Handbook of School Bus Drivers, Aides and Operations Staff. You indicated that you would bring documentation to change the unexcused absences of: April 11, 17, 21, 23, 24, 2003, May 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 2003, June 02, 03, 04, 05, 2003, (due to medical problems that you experienced at those times), and that you could bring in other documentation for: August 26, 29, 2003 and September 04, 05, 11, 2003, as a result of domestic problems you experienced at those time, from unacceptable to LWOP-A. You were asked if you had any other comments. You indicated that by Friday, October 31, 2003, you would bring in additional documentation for other dates listed above. You were told that this case would now be sent to Mr. George C. Millar, Director of the John Schee Regional Transportation Center and possibly to the Office of Jerry Klein, District Director, Department of Transportation Administration for further review. You were told that a summary would be prepared of today's session. You were apprised of your right to append, to clarify, or to explain any information recorded in this conference, by this Summary. You were asked to review this summary on Monday October 27, 2003, after 8:30AM, in Gail Allen, the Executive Secretary's Office. Respondent signed this memorandum, acknowledging receipt thereof, on October 29, 2003. Mr. Exelbert referred Respondent to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program for help in dealing with problems affecting her attendance. George Millar, the Director of the John Schee Regional Transportation Center, held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent on February 13, 2004. On February 17, 2004, Mr. Millar prepared a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * CONFERENCE DATA It was stated that over the previous 12- month period, excluding summer, you have accrued 35.5 days of unauthorized absences. It was noted that several days previously unauthorized had been changed to authorized with a current net total of 35.5 days . . . . It was noted that the 35th day does not show on the report because the pay period just closed. A review of the record showed the following incidences attempting to assist you improve your attendance: Verbal Warning - February 21, 2003 Written Warning - March 20, 2003 . . . Conference for the Record - October 23, 2003 . . . . District Support Agency Referral - October 23, 2003 . . . . You were asked to present any additional documentation or response to address the issues presented. You stated that you were ill at the end of last year and you brought documentation. During a portion of that time you were hospitalized. You were instructed to submit documentation and it would be reviewed and considered for changing the identified absences to authorized. Your AFSCME Representatives were asked if they had any comment, Mr. Houghtaling said no. Action Taken The following section of the contract between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and AFSCME Local 1184 and Department of Transportation Handbook were reviewed and you acknowledged understanding their meaning and intent Article V, Section 27 . . . . Article XI, Section 4, Paragraph B . . . . Section 9 Attendance - M-DCPS, Department of Transportation Handbook for Drivers, Aides and Operations Staff . . . . The following instructions were given at the conference: Report for duty each day and shift that you are scheduled to work. Call in or submit a leave card in advance of your reporting time when you intend to be absent. Present documentation for absences not covered by accrued leave time to this administrator or Dr. Michael Exelbert upon your return to duty. Conclusion You were instructed that this conference would be summarized and forwarded to the Administrative Director, Department of Transportation, and the Office of Professional Standards for review and subsequent disciplinary action as merited. You were informed of your right to appendage (provide a written statement), which will be attached to the conference summary if you feel any facts or information is misrepresented or statements omitted which occurred during the conference. You will have 24 hours from receipt of the conference summary to submit this appendage. These statements concluded the conference. Respondent signed this memorandum, acknowledging receipt thereof, on February 24, 2004. Barbara Moss, the School Board's Office of Professional Standards' District Director, held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent on March 16, 2004, to discuss Respondent's absenteeism and her "future employment status" with the School board. In the 12-month period prior to this conference, Respondent had been absent a total of 72 days and had 33.5 days of unauthorized absences. On March 24, 2004, Ms. Moss prepared and furnished Respondent a memorandum in which Ms. Moss summarized what had transpired at the conference. In those portions of the memorandum addressing the "action taken" and the "action to be taken," Ms. Moss wrote the following: Action Taken You were advised of the availability of services from the District's support referral agency. The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you during the conference concerning future absences: Be in regular attendance and on time. Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to Mr. George Millar or designee. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to Mr. Millar or designee upon your return to the site. Failure to comply will result in the absence being recorded as Leave Without Pay, Unauthorized (LWOU). During the conference, you were directed to comply and provided with a copy of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves. You are advised of the high esteem in which employees are held and of the District's concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. Action TO Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of District Compliance Units, the Administrative Director of Transportation, and the Director of [the] John Schee Transportation Center. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys will be requested. Receipt of their legal review with endorsement by the Chief Communications Officer, will compel formal notification of the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary actions will be consistent with the concepts and practice of progressive or corrective discipline. The degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. You were apprised of your right to clarify, explain, and respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. At its June 16, 2004, meeting, the School Board "took action to suspend [Respondent] and initiate dismissal proceedings against [her]."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment with the School Board pursuant Article XI, Section 4B, of the AFSCME Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2005.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended without pay and terminated from employment with Petitioner for falsification of documentation and insubordination.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Chappelle has been employed with the School Board since around August 2002. His supervisor was John Dierdorff. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Chappelle had been a communications technician with the School Board for approximately five years.1 No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Chappelle was a non-instructional employee with the School Board. Additionally, his supervisor for the entire time of his employment in communications with the School Board was Mr. Dierdorff. Approximately one year after beginning his employment with the School Board, Mr. Chappelle was having attendance problems, i.e., absenteeism. Mr. Dierdorff attempted to assist Mr. Chappelle improve his attendance, but to no avail. At a point in time, Mr. Chappelle had exhausted all of his sick leave and had no available sick days. When Mr. Chappelle was absent due to illness, he was required to submit a doctor’s excuse. On December 17, 2007, Mr. Chappelle received a written reprimand for falsification of documentation from the School Board’s Director of the Department of Employee Relations. He had submitted to Mr. Dierdorff a “fraudulent or false doctor’s note that was purported to be from [his doctor].” Among other things, Mr. Chappelle was “directed to cease such conduct immediately” and “to desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future” and was informed that his failure to do so would result in “further disciplinary action up to and including termination.” Mr. Chappelle acknowledged receipt of the written reprimand by signing it on December 17, 2007. The evidence demonstrates that the Director of the Department of Employee Relations had the authority to give Mr. Chappelle the directive. The evidence further demonstrates that the directive was reasonable in nature. Regarding the written reprimand, at hearing, Mr. Chappelle admitted that he had falsified the doctor’s note, submitted it to Mr. Dierdorff, and had received the written reprimand as disciplinary action. Moreover, Mr. Chappelle admitted that he had self-reported the wrongful conduct to the School Board; the School Board had no knowledge that he had falsified the doctor’s note. Mr. Chappelle further admitted that he engaged in the wrongful conduct because, at the time, he was suffering from health issues and having money problems, including no money to pay for a doctor’s services, and his wife was having mental health issues. Several months later, on or about September 29, 2008, Mr. Chappelle submitted a doctor’s note to Mr. Dierdorff. Among other things, the note indicated that Mr. Chappelle was medically cleared for work starting September 29, 2008; and that he was not to work from September 17, 2008, through September 29, 2008. Mr. Dierdorff believed that the doctor’s note had been altered or falsified because the note had whiteout on it and the date of the note appeared to be “9/24/98,” not “9/24/08.” As a result, he referred the matter to the Department of Employee Relations for possible investigation. Subsequently, Mr. Chappelle became the subject of an investigation by Employee Relations. The investigation was based upon the allegation that he had falsified the doctor’s note and had acted in an insubordinate manner by engaging in the same or similar conduct for which he had been previously disciplined. The doctor’s note that was contained in the medical file at the physician’s office was not the same as the doctor’s note submitted to Mr. Dierdorff. Instead of indicating that Mr. Chappelle was medically cleared for work on September 29, 2008, the doctor’s note in the medical file indicated September 25, 2008. Further, instead of indicating a period of time in which Mr. Chappelle was not to work, the doctor’s note in the medical file was blank and, therefore, did not indicate a period of time. However, the doctor’s note in the medical file did indicate that the date of the doctor’s note was “9/24/08,” the same as the doctor’s note submitted to Mr. Dierdorff. The evidence demonstrates that the doctor’s note submitted to Mr. Dierdorff on or about September 29, 2008, was altered and falsified. Mr. Chappelle denies that it was he who altered and falsified the doctor’s note. Mr. Dierdorff denies that he altered or falsified the doctor’s note. Mr. Chappelle does not deny that it was he who submitted the doctor’s note to Mr. Dierdorff. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Chappelle altered and falsified the doctor’s note that he submitted to Mr. Dierdorff on September 29, 2008.2 Mr. Chappelle’s conduct on September 29, 2008, was the same as or similar to his previous conduct for which he was disciplined on December 17, 2007, by a written reprimand. Among other things, Mr. Chappelle was notified in the written reprimand that the same or similar conduct would result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Chappelle intentionally committed the same or similar conduct and intentionally failed to abide by the directive to no longer engage in such action. By letter dated April 24, 2009, the Superintendent, Arthur C. Johnson, Ph.D., advised Mr. Chappelle, among other things, that sufficient just cause existed to impose disciplinary action pursuant to Sections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.27(5), Florida Statutes; School Board Policies 1.013 and 3.27; and Article 17, Section 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Service Employees International Union, Florida Public Services Union, and the School Board. Further, Superintendent Johnson advised Mr. Chappelle that he (Superintendent Johnson) was recommending to the School Board, as discipline, suspension without pay and termination from employment. Mr. Chappelle acknowledged that he received the letter by signing and dating it on April 25, 2009. Superintendent Johnson’s recommendation was submitted to the School Board. The School Board agreed with the recommendation. Mr. Chappelle timely requested an administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order suspending Augustus Chappelle for 15 days and re- instating him at the expiration of the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2010.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and "unacceptable"; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.1 A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory" and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) and a follow-up, "for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFAE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teacher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. Within 14 days after the end of probation, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators.2 The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "I.A.1." Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.3 Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.4 B. At all times material to this case, Respondent Sergio H. Escalona ("Escalona") was a teacher in the District. From 2000 until May 19, 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Escalona was a science teacher at Miami Springs Senior High School ("Miami Springs"), a typical high school in the District. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Escalona in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator November 5, 2003 Carlos M. del Cuadro, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs December 2, 2003 Mr. del Cuadro January 16, 2004 Douglas P. Rodriguez, Principal, Miami Springs February 17, 2004 Deborah Carter, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs April 5, 2004 Mr. Rodriguez The Board contends that Escalona failed all five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation (including the first), the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Escalona had failed: IA1 IA2 IB1 IB3 IE3 IF1 IF2 IIA1 IIA3 IIB2 IIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x 01-16-04 x x x 02-17-04 x x x x 04-05-04 x x x IID1 IID3 IID4 IIE1 IIE2 IIE5 IIIA1 IIIA3 IIIB1 IIIB3 IIIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x 01-16-04 x x 02-17-04 x 04-05-04 x x x x x IVA3 IVA 5 IVA6 IVB1 IVB2 IVB 3 IVC2 IVD1 IVD3 IVD6 IVE2 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x 02-17-04 x x x x x 04-05-04 x ? x ? x ? x x IVE4 VA1 VA4 VB1 VB2 VC1 VIA2 VIB1 VIB3 VIC2 VIC4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x x 02-17-04 04-05-04 x ? ? ? x ? x x Because Mr. del Cuadro identified 10 performance deficiencies on December 2, 2003, Escalona was placed on performance probation, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Mr. Rodriguez held a CFR on December 9, 2004, to review with Escalona the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Escalona was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), dated December 9, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Mr. Rodriguez charged Escalona with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: II.B.4, II.E.5, III.B.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.1, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, and VI.A.2. (These 10 indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Escalona was given a PIP, and a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. Following the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, based on which Mr. Rodriguez identified 24 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Mr. Rodriguez notified the superintendent that Escalona had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Escalona's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Mr. Rodriguez's recommendation on April 12, 2004, and shortly thereafter notified Escalona of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Escalona's employment contract. On May 19, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. C. Of the four evaluations "for the record," the two that were conducted during Escalona's probation (on January 16, 2004, and February 17, 2004) are presently relevant mainly to establish that the proper procedure was followed——a matter that is not genuinely disputed. The substance of these probationary evaluations cannot affect the outcome here because even if Escalona's performance had been perfect during probation, Mr. Rodriguez nevertheless found deficiencies during the post- probation, confirmatory evaluation, which is the only one probative of the dispositive question: Had Escalona corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation? In view of the ultimate issue, the evaluation of December 2, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the 10 "noted performance deficiencies" that Escalona needed to correct. For reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Board cannot terminate Escalona's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation; rather, it must focus exclusively on those 10 particular deficiencies which Escalona was given 90 calendar days to correct. Thus, stated more precisely, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the 10 specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Escalona on December 9, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. As it happened, Mr. Rodriguez determined, as a result of the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, that Escalona had corrected three of the 10 noted performance deficiencies, for Mr. Rodriguez gave Escalona a passing grade on the indicators II.B.4, II.E.5, and III.B.3. The remaining seven deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "?" symbol. It is to these seven allegedly uncorrected deficiencies that our attention now must turn. The Board contends, based on Mr. Rodriguez's confirmatory evaluation of April 5, 2004, that Escalona was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: 5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. 1: Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. IV.D.1: Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. V.A.1: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. 4: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. 1: A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. VI.A.2: Learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks is monitored. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Escalona failed adequately to perform the seven indicators just mentioned——consists of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. Mr. Rodriguez, who had observed Escalona in the classroom for 50 minutes that day, recounted at final hearing what he had seen as follows: Again, there were students that were simply not engaged at all in learning. For example, there was a student that put his head down at a particular time. He slept for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Escalona never addressed the student, never redirected the learning, never tried to engage that student. Overall the students continued to pass notes in class. The students simply——there was really no plan at all. That was get up, give a lecture. Kids were not paying attention. No redirection for student learning. Questions again very basic. Most of the questions had no response from the students. And [they] just seemed very disinterested, the students did, and the lesson was just not acceptable. Final Hearing Transcript at 103-04. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Escalona's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing testimony, for that is all the evidence there is on the subject.5 Mr. Rodriguez did not explain how he had applied the seven indicators quoted above to his classroom observations of Escalona to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. The seven indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not standards upon which to base a judgment, but rather factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. If a particular indicator-condition (e.g. the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." The indicator-conditions are plainly not objective historical facts; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions" of law and fact. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Mr. Rodriguez observed on April 5, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Escalona's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the "[t]eaching and learning activities [had been] appropriate for the complexity of the learning context" (Indicator IV.B.1), or whether the questions asked adequately "enable[d] thinking" (Indicator V.B.1).6 This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently—— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be standards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to monitor learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks (Indicator VI.A.2) or to create opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive level (Indicator IV.D.1).7 Other standards might be definitional. For example, to determine whether teaching and learning activities are appropriate (Indicator IV.B.1) practically demands a definition of the term "appropriate" for this context. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether a question enables thinking (Indicator V.B.1). However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- conditions are present or absent in a given situation——and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the seven relevant indicators were extant in Escalona's classroom on April 5, 2004, or not. E. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Escalona had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. The only evidence of Escalona's post- probation teaching performance consists of Mr. Rogriguez's testimony about his observation of Escalona for 50 minutes on April 5, 2004, which was quoted above. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony gives the undersigned little to work with. His observations can be boiled down to four major points, none of which flatters Escalona: (a) Escalona lectured, and the students, who seemed disinterested, did not pay attention——some even passed notes; (b) Escalona asked "very basic" questions, most of which elicited "no response"; (c) one student slept for 15 minutes, and Escalona left him alone; (d) the lesson was "just not acceptable." On inspection, these points are much less helpful than they might at first blush appear. One of them——point (d)——is merely a conclusion which invades the undersigned's province as the fact-finder; accordingly, it has been given practically no weight. The only facts offered in support of the conclusions, in point (a), that the students "seemed" disinterested and were "not paying attention" to Escalona's lecture is the testimony that some students passed notes, and some (many?) did not answer the teacher's questions. But this is a rather thin foundation upon which to rest a conclusion that the students were bored because Escalona's teaching was poor. And even if they were (or looked) bored, is it not fairly common for teenaged high-school students to be (or appear) bored in school, for reasons unrelated to the teacher's performance? There is no evidence whatsoever that student boredom (or note passing or non- responsiveness) features only in the classrooms of poorly performing teachers. As for the supposedly "basic" nature of Escalona's questions, see point (b), the undersigned cannot give Mr. Rodriguez's testimony much weight, because there is no evidence as to what the questions actually were or why they were so very basic. Finally, regarding point (c), the fact that a student slept during class is, to be sure, somewhat damaging to Escalona, inasmuch as students should not generally be napping in class, but without additional information about the student (who might have been sick, for all the undersigned knows) and the surrounding circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that the sleeping student is res ipsa loquitur on the quality of of Escalona's teaching performance. There is certainly no evidence that students doze only in the bad teachers' classes. More important, however, than the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Escalona's classroom that day, which he lacks, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Escalona's performance, to determine whether the indicator- conditions were met or not. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Escalona.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Florida Statutes. When a teacher contests a superintendent's recommendation of dismissal, as here, the ensuing hearing must be conducted "in accordance with chapter 120." See § 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Fla. Stat. A "chapter 120 proceeding [entails] a hearing de novo intended to 'formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1993)(quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). Thus, the Board's burden in this case was not merely to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators sincerely believed, after conducting a legally sufficient assessment, that Young's performance was deficient, nor even to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators' judgment was factually and legally tenable. Rather, the Board's burden was to persuade the undersigned himself to find, independently, that Young's performance was deficient. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate a teacher's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the Board was required to prove the alleged grounds for Escalona's dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Bd. of Lake County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). B. Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, which governs the process for evaluating teachers, provides in full as follows: 1012.34 Assessment procedures and criteria.-- For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The Department of Education must approve each district's instructional personnel assessment system. The following conditions must be considered in the design of the district's instructional personnel assessment system: The system must be designed to support district and school level improvement plans. The system must provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel. The system must include a mechanism to give parents an opportunity to provide input into employee performance assessments when appropriate. In addition to addressing generic teaching competencies, districts must determine those teaching fields for which special procedures and criteria will be developed. Each district school board may establish a peer assistance process. The plan may provide a mechanism for assistance of persons who are placed on performance probation as well as offer assistance to other employees who request it. The district school board shall provide training programs that are based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Education to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements: An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program. The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following: Performance of students. Ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field. Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom. Ability to evaluate instructional needs. Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement. Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board. All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place. The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements: 1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. 2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies. b. Within 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. The hearing shall be conducted at the district school board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the district school board within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain the district school superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment; or A hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal in accordance with chapter 120. The recommendation of the administrative law judge shall be made to the district school board. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain or change the administrative law judge's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. The district school superintendent shall notify the department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and who have been given written notice by the district that their employment is being terminated or is not being renewed or that the district school board intends to terminate, or not renew, their employment. The department shall conduct an investigation to determine whether action shall be taken against the certificateholder pursuant to s. 1012.795(1)(b). The district school superintendent shall develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. The use of the assessment and evaluation procedures shall be considered as part of the annual assessment of the administrator's performance. The system must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrator's performance assessment, when appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to continued employment beyond the term of his or her contract. The district school board shall establish a procedure annually reviewing instructional personnel assessment systems to determine compliance with this section. All substantial revisions to an approved system must be reviewed and approved by the district school board before being used to assess instructional personnel. Upon request by a school district, the department shall provide assistance in developing, improving, or reviewing an assessment system. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, that establish uniform guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of district procedures for the annual assessment of instructional personnel and that include criteria for evaluating professional performance. (Underlining and italics added). Under Section 1012.34(3), school districts must establish a primarily student performance-based procedure (or system) for assessing the performance of teachers. In other words, the method of accomplishing the assessment must be tailored to meet the goal of forming evaluative judgments about teachers' performance based mainly on the performance of their students. In clear terms, then, the legislature has announced that the primary (though not exclusive)8 indicator of whether a teacher is doing a good job is the performance of his students. If a teacher's students are succeeding, then, whatever he is doing, the teacher is likely (though not necessarily) performing his duties satisfactorily. It is plainly the legislature's belief that if we do not know how the teacher's students are performing, then we cannot make a valid judgment as to whether the teacher is performing his duties satisfactorily.9 The statute further mandates that, in assessing teachers, indicators of student performance——which performance is assessed annually as specified in Section 1008.22——must be the primarily-used data. (In contrast, evaluators are permitted, but not required, to make use of peer reviews in assessing teacher performance.) Section 1008.22, which is referenced specifically in Section 1012.34(3)(a), requires that school districts participate in a statewide assessment program, the centerpiece of which is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). See § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The FCAT is a standardized test that is administered annually to students in grades three through 10. Id. Section 1008.22 is not concerned only with the FCAT, however. Subsection (7), for example, provides as follows: (7) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.--Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. Thus, the school districts are charged with developing their own local assessment tools, to fill in the gaps left open by the statewide FCAT testing program. Section 1008.22(5) provides additionally that "[s]tudent performance data shall be used in . . . evaluation of instructional personnel[.]" Section 1012.34(3)(a) prescribes two and only two permissible measures of student performance for use in evaluating teachers: (a) the statewide FCAT assessments and (b) the gap-filling local assessments, both of which measures are required under Section 1008.22. It is clear that Sections 1012.34(3) and 1008.22 have at least one subject in common, namely, student performance-based assessment of teachers. Being in pari materia in this regard, Sections 1012.34 and 1008.22 must be construed so as to further the common goal. See, e.g., Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1993)(separate statutory provisions that are in pari materia should be construed to express a unified legislative purpose); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Com'n, 643 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(statutes on same subject and having same general purpose should be construed in pari materia). When the requirements of Section 1012.34(3) are read together with Section 1008.22, several conclusions are inescapable. First, FCAT scores must be the primary source of information used in evaluating any teacher who teaches an FCAT- covered subject to students in grades three through 10. Second, school districts must develop, and annually administer, local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT. Third, student performance data derived from local assessments must be the primary source of information used in evaluating teachers whose subjects are not covered on the FCAT and/or whose students do not take the FCAT. The absence of evidence in the record concerning the performance of Escalona's students either on the FCAT or on local assessments, as appropriate, see endnote 5, supra, deprives the undersigned of information that the legislature has deemed essential to the evaluation of a teacher's performance. Having neither state nor local assessments to review, the undersigned cannot find that Escalona's performance was deficient in the first place, much less whether he corrected the alleged performance deficiencies in accordance with Section 1012.34(3)(d). Without such findings, the Board cannot dismiss Escalona for failure to correct noted performance deficiencies. C. It was stated in the Findings of Fact above that the Board can terminate Escalona's employment only if, based on an assessment of his performance as of the two-week period following the 90 calendar days of probation, the teacher had failed to correct the particular performance deficiencies of which he had been formally notified in writing prior to probation; other alleged deficiencies, whether observed during probation or thereafter, cannot be relied upon in support of a decision to dismiss Escalona. Standing behind this observation is Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The pertinent statutory language instructs that a teacher whose performance has been deemed unsatisfactory must be provided a written "notice of unsatisfactory performance," which notice shall include a description of "such unsatisfactory performance" plus recommendations for improvement in the "specific areas of unsatisfactory performance." The statute then specifies that the teacher must be allowed 90 calendar days "following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance" to correct "the noted performance deficiencies." Clearly, the "noted performance deficiencies" are the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance described in the notice of unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the statute mandates that the teacher shall be assessed within two weeks after the end of probation to determine whether "the performance deficiencies" have been corrected. It is clear, again, that "the performance deficiencies" are "the noted performance deficiencies" described in the written notice of unsatisfactory performance. See § 1012.34(3)(d)1. & 2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The reason why a decision to terminate a poorly performing teacher must be based solely on the specific performance deficiencies described in the pre-probation notice of unsatisfactory performance is plain: allowing the school district to rely on subsequently observed deficiencies would defeat the teacher's unambiguous statutory right to have 90 post-notice calendar days in which to correct the noted performance deficiencies that triggered probation in the first place. This case exemplifies the problem posed by post-notice deficiencies. The notice of unsatisfactory performance (the Summary) that gave rise to Escalona's probation, which was based on Mr. del Cuadro's evaluation of December 2, 2003, charged the teacher with 10 specific performance deficiencies. By February 17, 2004, when Ms. Carter formally observed Escalona for the last time before the end of probation, Escalona had corrected all but one (Indicator IV.A.5) of the noted performance deficiencies——suggesting that he had made significant improvement. Unfortunately for Escalona, however, Ms. Carter believed that the teacher had exhibited nine deficiencies besides the noted performance deficiencies, with the net result that, near the end of probation, Escalona still had 10 deficiencies. Of these nine post-notice deficiencies, four (Indicators I.F.1, I.F.2, II.A.1, and IV.B.3) were recorded for the first time ever on February 17, 2004. Obviously, Escalona was not given 90 days to correct these four alleged deficiencies. Yet another three of the post-notice deficiencies reported by Ms. Carter (Indicators I.A.1, IV.A.6, and IV.B.2) had not been seen since Mr. Cuadro's initial evaluation of November 5, 2003. This initial evaluation, being "not of record," cannot count as a notice of unsatisfactory performance to Escalona. Hence he was not given 90 days to correct these three alleged deficiencies. For that matter, the remaining two post-notice deficiencies alleged to exist on February 17, 2004—— Indicators II.D.4 and IV.A.3——had not been observed, post- notice, until January 16, 2004, which means that Escalona did not have 90 days to correct them, either. For the above reasons, when assessing whether, in fact, Escalona had corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period following probation, the undersigned focused, as he was required to do, exclusively on the 10 deficiencies described in the Summary, seven of which were alleged not to have been timely corrected. Having determined as a matter of fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove these seven alleged deficiencies existed or persisted, it must be concluded that the Board has failed to carry its burden of establishing the alleged factual grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Escalona of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Escalona be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Escalona back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent as a secretary at Lindsey Hopkins Prior to 2010, school administrators at Lindsey Hopkins had received numerous complaints from school employees that Respondent had verbally harassed them. On February 8, 2010, Esteban Sardon was working as Assistant Principal of Lindsey Hopkins. On that date he was in one of the school's administrative offices and Respondent was also present. Mr. Sardon coughed while in the office. Almost immediately, Respondent accused Mr. Sardon of having spit on her. Respondent sent Dr. Rosa Borgen, the principal of Lindsey Hopkins, a letter on February 10, 2010, that alleged that Mr. Sardon had deliberately twice spit and coughed in her face. In her letter, Respondent described "[t]wo big huge cough breath [sic] rate were [sic] about 70 to 80 wind speed with a [sic] some saliva." Respondent also sent Mr. Sardon a memorandum calling his behavior "unprofessional" and alleging that she was going to contact "CRC" (the Civil Rights Compliance Office). Mr. Sardon denied, credibly, that he spat on Respondent. The more credible evidence established that he did cough twice in Respondent's presence, but the coughs were dry coughs and not in the direction of Respondent. Respondent fabricated the allegation that Mr. Sardon had purposefully spat on her. In an attempt to resolve the issues related to Respondent's allegations that Mr. Sardon had spat on her, Mr. Gornto, a district administrator, decided that the school administrators should meet with Mr. Sardon and Respondent. On March 9, 2010, Pamela Johnson, an instructional supervisor, from Mr. Gornto's office, met with Mr. Sardon, Respondent, Dr. Borgen, and another assistant principal of Lindsey Hopkins. At the meeting, Respondent presented a document entitled "What Would Make Me Happy" and asked Mr. Sardon to sign it. The "demands" were as follows: I will never ever to [sic] use you're [sic] inside waste on me [sic]. Meaning neither your breath, nor your saliva. I am not a toilet. I am Human [sic]. A Human Being [sic]. Not to try to embarrass me in front of my co-workers. Not to retaliate against me after this incident. Big apology. Mr. Sardon offered an apology to put the matter at rest, but he refused to sign the document. Shortly after the "spitting" accusation, Respondent had conflicts with Drusilla Sears and Donna Wallace, both of whom worked closely with Mr. Sardon. On March 2, 2010, Ms. Sears, a school account clerk, asked Respondent if she was finished using a copy machine. Respondent told her that she had asked a "stupid question," thereby starting a verbal altercation that included finger- pointing by Respondent and by Ms. Sears. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Ms. Sears did not threaten physical harm to Respondent. This run-in upset Ms. Sears. On March 3, 2010, Respondent sent another letter to Dr. Borgen claiming that Ms. Sears had tried to beat her up. In the letter Respondent also stated, in all capital letters, the following: "I AM NO FOOL. I KNOW SOMEONE TOLD DRUSILLA TO DO THIS TO ME." There was no credible evidence that anyone had instructed Ms. Sears to do anything to Respondent. To the contrary, the greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent provoked the incident with Ms. Sears. On March 5, 2010, Respondent wrote another letter to Dr. Borgen. That letter referenced the incidents with Mr Sardon and Ms. Sears and also asserted that someone had placed child pornography on her school computer. There was no credible evidence that anyone had placed pornography on Respondent's computer.1 On March 16, 2010, Mr. Gornto sent Respondent a memorandum related to an earlier correspondence he had received from Respondent. In the letter Mr. Gornto told Respondent that any future complaints regarding employees should be made to Dr. Borgen, to the CRC, or to the school police department. Despite this directive from Mr. Gornto, Respondent continued to contact Mr. Gornto. These contacts (Petitioner's Exhibits 9, 12, and 17-21) were in the form of emails that contained false (and often nonsensical) allegations of employee wrongdoing against her. Each of these emails constituted separate and distinct acts that contradicted Mr. Gornto's directives to Respondent. A recurring theme in those emails was that Dr. Borgen and other school employees were trying to "destroy" her or make her "miserable." In one email, Respondent alleged that one of Mr. Gornto's subordinates had been impersonating Mr. Gornto. In April 2010, Respondent approached school clerk Donna Wallace and accused her of saying something about Respondent to a school counselor. Ms. Wallace denied, credibly, that there was a factual basis for the allegation. Respondent told Ms. Wallace to "watch her back" and threatened to sue her for slander. The incident made Ms. Wallace feel uncomfortable and embarrassed. On April 13, 2010, Respondent engaged in a verbal altercation with Shundra Hardy, a data input specialist. Ms. Hardy worked in the student registration department. When Mr. Sardon was made aware of this incident, Mr. Sardon told Respondent that she was only to visit the registration area as long she did not disturb other employees. This directive caused Respondent to yell and confront Mr. Sardon in his office, As a result of that confrontation, Mr. Sardon called school security. On May 18, 2010, a conference for the record (CFR) was held with Respondent. Dr. Borgen, Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Anna Rasco (Administrative Director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards) represented Petitioner. The recent conflicts involving Respondent prompted a decision that she would have to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation. During the time the evaluation was to be completed, Respondent was placed on alternate assignment at her home. Respondent was directed to refrain from engaging in the behaviors that had prompted the need for the evaluation, and she was directed not to contact the school (other than through the principal's office to report her attendance) while on alternate assignment. By letter dated August 10, 2010, Stephen Kahn, M.D., advised Dr. Rasco that Respondent was not fit for duty due to her mental status.2 By letter to Dr. Rasco dated September 4, 2010, Richard S. Greenbaum, Ph.D., a psychologist, opined that Respondent could return to work if she continued to see a psychotherapist.3 On October 4, 2010, Respondent called Lindsey Hopkins and spoke with two employees. These contacts were in direct violation of the directives that had been issued to her.4 On October 14, 2010, a CFR was held with Respondent. Ms. Nyce Daniel (who had replaced the retired Dr. Borgen as Principal of Lindsey Hopkins), Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Brasco represented Petitioner. This CFR was held to address Respondent's non-compliance with the terms and directives given to her while on alternate assignment. Respondent was directed to refrain from engaging in the behaviors that had prompted the need for a fitness evaluation. Respondent was also advised that she would not be permitted to return to work because of the conflicting opinions between Drs. Kahn and Greenbaum. Respondent selected Joseph W. Poitier, Jr., M.D., to conduct her third evaluation. By letter to Dr. Rasco dated March 14, 2011, Dr. Poitier opined that within a reasonable medical certainty Respondent was able to return to work without restriction.5 On March 30, 2011, a CFR was held with Respondent. Ms. Daniel, Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Brasco represented Petitioner. Based on Dr. Poitier's opinion, Respondent was advised that she could return to work on April 4. Respondent was again given directives that included explicit directives to refrain from the behaviors that had caused the need for her fitness for duty evaluations. Specifically, Respondent was instructed to avoid altercations with school staff. On April 5, 2011, with people present in the office, Respondent, using vulgar language, told Cassandra Johnson (a teacher at Lindsey Hopkins) that her husband, Charles Johnson (the head custodian) had engaged in a sexual affair with Dr. Borgen and that Dr. Borgen had been "doing all the guys in school." Ms. Johnson attempted to distance herself from Respondent, but Respondent pursued Ms. Johnson down the hall and continued her verbal tirade. Ms. Johnson was humiliated and upset by the incident. Respondent's actions disrupted Ms. Johnson's ability to perform her duties that day. Mr. Johnson was very upset by Respondent's accusation and denied, credibly, that he had ever had a sexual relationship with Ms. Borgen. Mr. Johnson was concerned that the accusations could hurt his marriage, and he was concerned because his wife was very upset. On April 7, 2011, Respondent confronted Thomas Nunn (an automotive instructor at Lindsey Hopkins) and implied that he had been in an intimate relationship with Dr. Borgen. Mr. Nunn was not offended by Respondent's comments. However, Ms. Daniel learned of Respondent's comments to Mr. Nunn. On April 8 Ms. Daniel directed Respondent to refrain from such conduct. At the time Ms. Daniel gave those directions to Respondent, Ms. Daniel did not know about the incident involving Mr. and Ms. Johnson. On April 8, 2011, Respondent called Mr. Gornto's office to ask permission to take half-day leave. This call was in violation of the directives Mr. Gornto had given to her as to how she was to communicate with her supervisors. On April 11, 2001, Ms. Daniel learned of the incident involving Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. On or about April 28, 2011, Respondent complained to the CRC that Erinn Gobert (the ESOL chairperson at Lindsey Hopkins) and Sophia Hall (an assistant principal at Lindsey Hopkins) had been harassing her. She stated that they were mumbling things about her, taunting her, and teasing her. She further reported that Ms. Gobert and Ms. Hall made gestures that they wanted to fight with Respondent. Respondent's accusations of harassment triggered an investigation. Respondent's accusations were complete fabrications. Neither Ms. Gobert nor Ms. Hall had any meaningful contact with Respondent. On May 18, 2011, a CFR was held with Respondent to address her gross insubordination and violation of other school board rules. Ms. Daniel, Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Rasco represented Petitioner. As a result of her behaviors, Ms. Daniel had to constantly give Respondent specific tasks to minimize Respondent's interaction with other employees. Despite Ms. Daniel's efforts, Respondent's run-ins with co-workers were throughout the school and reached outside of Respondent's assigned work area. Many of her co-workers were not comfortable working with or near Respondent. The efforts to shield co- workers from Respondent created extra work for Ms. Daniel. Respondent's repeated contacts with Mr. Gornto and her baseless accusations towards co-workers disrupted his work and consumed an inordinate amount of his time. Respondent's behavior negatively impacted employee morale at Lindsey Hopkins and disrupted its operations. Respondent repeatedly refused to obey administrative directives that were reasonable in nature and given with proper authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's professional services employment contract should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petitioner's letter to the Respondent dated October 1, 2002, and in the Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated October 25, 2002.
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 the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the Miami-Dade County school district and to provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (2001). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Stern was employed as a teacher with the School Board under a professional services contract. Ms. Stern is a member of the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"), and the terms of her employment with the School Board are governed by the Contract between the Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Ms. Stern first received her teaching certificate in 1952, and she began teaching in the Miami-Dade County public school system in 1987. The 2000-2001 school year was her first year teaching at Campbell Drive Elementary, and she was assigned to teach a regular second grade class. Campbell Drive Elementary was rated a "D" level school at the times material to this proceeding. Teacher Assessment and Development System. The Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS") had, prior to the 2001-2002 school year, been used in the Miami- Dade County public school system for 15 years to evaluate teachers employed by the School Board. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation ("Joint Committee") decided in 1996 that TADS should be replaced with a new evaluation system.2 As a result, the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System ("PACES") was developed and has been in use in the Miami-Dade County public school system since the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. As will be discussed in more detail below, the observations and evaluations at issue herein were all performed using TADS. TADS is a performance-based evaluation instrument, which includes sixty-eight specific teacher behaviors that should be performed in the classroom. The TADS evaluation procedures set forth in the UTD Contract and established by the Joint Committee required that formal Classroom Assessment observations be performed, that any observed performance deficiencies be noted, and that professional growth opportunities be provided to teachers with noted deficiencies. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period for teachers with professional service contracts. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed by representatives of the Miami-Dade County public school system and the UTD to implement procedures for the new system. Pursuant to the procedures adopted in the Memorandum of Understanding, the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period is commenced the day after a conference-for- the-record is held with the teacher to advise him or her of classroom performance deficiencies. At least two observations must be conducted during the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, and the teacher must be provided assistance through prescription plan activities and through referrals to resource persons for further assistance. At the conclusion of the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, a confirmatory observation is conducted to determine if the performance deficiencies have been corrected. Prescription plan activities have the status of administrative directives.3 The principal of Campbell Drive Elementary at the times pertinent to these proceedings was Betty Thomas, and the assistant principal was Claudia Brown. Both were trained to observe and evaluate teachers using TADS. Ms. Stern was first observed at Campbell Drive Elementary on October 10, 2001, by Ms. Brown. Ms. Stern received an overall acceptable rating on the CAI (Classroom Assessment Instrument) Post-Observation Report, as well as acceptable ratings on each of the six TADS rating categories. February 5, 2001, observation. Ms. Thomas conducted her first formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on February 5, 2002,4 when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade math class from 12:30 p.m. until 1:35 p.m. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Classroom Management and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, during the observation, instructional time was lost while Ms. Stern sharpened pencils for several students and wandered around the room without giving instruction to the students and that instructional time was lost when Ms. Stern told the students to put their heads on their desks approximately minutes before they were to leave the classroom for Spanish and Physical Education classes. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off-task and behaving inappropriately. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored or failed to respond when two students yelled at one another during a test, when students talked and played with pencils during a lesson, when two students left the room and returned, when two students hit one another, and when a student crawled on the floor. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, when virtually everyone in the class was talking, Ms. Stern asked those students who were talking to raise their hands; Ms. Stern praised the students who raised their hands for their honesty but did nothing to cause the students to stop talking. Ms. Thomas also noted several instances in which Ms. Stern responded to students with remarks that were either ineffectual or not to the point. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with clear expectations regarding appropriate behavior. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that no class rules were posted in the classroom and that Ms. Stern did not refer to any class rules. Ms. Thomas also noted that, while students were being sent to the board to work math problems, 75 percent of the students in the class were talking and several students were wandering around the room, all without correction from Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to respond quickly or appropriately to students who acted inappropriately or interfered with the work of others. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not respond, and actually ignored, most of the students' inappropriate behaviors, which included a student dancing around the back of the room, students laughing and playing with a hat, students loudly asking how to do the assignment, and students yelling to one another. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.G.3. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to emphasize potential areas of difficulty, specifically with respect to the math problems involving "regrouping," by either verbal or non-verbal clues. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern failed to assist a student who had difficulty with a math problem at the board.5 Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.H.1. and 2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify areas of potential confusion or to clarify areas of confusion after it became obvious that the students did not understand the assigned math problems involving "regrouping." Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern wrote problems on the board and directed the students to solve them without providing any explanation. When several students asked Ms. Stern how to do the problems, she told them she would go over it later, but she did not do so during the math lesson. It was Ms. Thomas's general impression during her February 5, 2002, observation, that Ms. Stern was unable to manage the students in her class. There were many disruptions in the classroom that distracted the students and made it difficult for them to learn. Ms. Thomas estimates that approximately 90 percent of the students in the class were off-task at some point during the observation. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Thomas held a Conference- for-the-Record with Ms. Stern.6 Also present at the conference were Ms. Brown, as well as Ms. Marcos and Ms. Rolle, Ms. Stern's union representatives. During the conference, Ms. Thomas discussed the February 5, 2001, observation with Ms. Stern, and they discussed the prescription plan activities that Ms. Thomas had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by March 15, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. The Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription dated February 20, 2001, reflects that Ms. Stern was advised during the conference that her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period would commence the day after the conference, on February 21, 2001. Ms. Stern was also advised by Ms. Thomas that, after the conclusion of the probation period, she would determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the cited deficiencies during the probation period and would make a recommendation to the Superintendent at the conclusion of the probation period that could lead to the termination of Ms. Stern's employment. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report, the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, and the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription, thereby indicating that she had seen and received a copy of these documents. Ms. Stern completed approximately 80 percent of the prescription plan activities in the February 5, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement by the March 15, 2001, deadline. March 16, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown, the assistant principal at Campbell Drive Elementary, conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on March 16, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 10:45 a.m. Ms. Brown's impression was that Ms. Stern was agitated and angry that day and was unable to control the class or to teach adequately. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. The TADS Monitoring Committee reviewed the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and gave Ms. Stern credit for indicators IV.F.1., 2., and 3.; this change resulted in Ms. Stern's being rated acceptable in the category of Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.A.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to include in her lesson plan assessment tools, homework, materials, and most of the lesson's objectives and activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to prepare content and instructional activities to fill the allotted classroom time. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although the language arts block of instruction was scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Ms. Stern instructed the students to put their heads on their desks at 10:40 a.m., terminating the language arts instruction. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, throughout the observation period, Ms. Stern allowed unnecessary delays during instruction and transitions. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern spent approximately 20 minutes of the language arts period making comments to the students about the quality of their work and attempting to get their attention. As reported by Ms. Brown: The teacher called out one comment and direction after the other, such as "I don't hear anything from table 4. excuse me, I just said your tables not talking. you did a beautiful job. thank you, Yrline, did you hear me?" "Salami, one, two, three, four. Now take your paper . . . everybody's eyes up here! Salami! Denise, table 1, your eyes up here, table 1, 2, 3, 4. Take your paper . . . Christian, Okoya, Desiree, Stanley, take your paper . . . excuse me." "Salame" is an acronym for "Stop and look at me," and its use is recommended as a technique for quieting students. Ms. Stern did not apply the technique correctly, however, because she talked very quickly and did not wait to give the students a chance to quiet down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that students were talking and calling out to one another, making noises, and getting out of their seats while Ms. Stern read a story. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, then accepted answers from students who had not raised their hands, and failed to correct a student who was out of his seat and sitting with a student who had been separated from the group for being disruptive. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that a student that Ms. Stern had separated from the class for being disruptive was allowed to spend 20 minutes building a house with word cards; that a student spent 15 minutes with his chin on his desk doing nothing without Ms. Stern's redirecting him, and, although she said she would return to help him, she did not do so; and that, in several instances, Ms. Stern either failed to correct students who were behaving inappropriately or ignored students when they failed to respond to her directions. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands to answer questions, she accepted answers called out by students who did not raise their hands and failed to call on students who had raised their hands; that Ms. Stern re-enforced inappropriate behavior by telling a student that he was doing well when he was not working but was turned around in his seat talking to a student behind him; and that, although class rules were posted in the classroom, Ms. Stern did not refer to them. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to identify and deal quickly and appropriately with students who interacted with others inappropriately and interfered with the work of others. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern either did not notice, or ignored, students' inappropriate behavior, which included a student doing work in another student's phonetic workbook; students talking and making noises while Ms. Stern was talking or reading; students laughing at another student, who had been sent to the corner and responded to Ms. Stern's direction to get up by standing up and turning around and around. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern did not state the consequences for students who were continuously told to stop calling out or were continuously told to sit down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.F.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, as noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to refer back to the objective of the lesson, to relate one part of the lesson to other parts of the lesson, and to summarize the lesson and apply it to past or future lessons.7 A conference was held on March 23, 2001, with Ms. Stern, Ms. Thomas, and Ms. Brown in attendance. No written summary of the conference was prepared, but Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report and the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement on March 23, 2001, acknowledging that she had seen and received a copy of the documents. At the March 23, 2001, conference, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern discussed the results of the March 16, 2001, observation and the prescription plan activities that Ms. Brown had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, as well as the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by April 20, 2001. The April 20, 2001, deadline was extended until May 18, 2001, because of Ms. Stern's absences, as discussed below. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. May 17, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. In a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, and directed to Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, a District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Thomas requested that Dr. O'Donnell take control of the "re-entry" of Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas asked for Dr. O'Donnell's intervention because Ms. Stern had been absent a total of 22 personal and sick days and because Ms. Stern was on 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation. As a result of Ms. Thomas's request, Dr. O'Donnell sent a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, to Ms. Stern telling her that she needed to contact the Office of Professional Standards before she returned to work so that a clearance conference could be scheduled. The clearance conference was held on May 16, 2001, at the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. O'Donnell, Ms. Thomas, Clemencia Waddell, Director of Region VI, and Dia Falco, Ms. Stern's UTD representative, attended the conference. As reflected in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, the purpose of the conference was to address Ms. Stern's performance assessments, her attendance, and her medical fitness to perform her duties and to review Ms. Stern's record and her future employment status with the Miami-Dade County public school system. As of May 15, 2001, Ms. Stern had used more sick time than she had accrued, and Dr. O'Donnell advised her that her absences, which consisted of 21.5 sick and personal days and 1/2 days of unauthorized leave without pay, were considered excessive. Ms. Stern's performance evaluations were also discussed at the conference, and it was noted that she had been provided prescription plan activities to assist her in correcting the deficiencies identified in the March 16, 2001, observation report, which activities were to have been completed by April 20, 2001. Ms. Stern had not provided the required materials to Ms. Thomas or Ms. Brown, but, because she was absent beginning on April 18, 2001, Ms. Stern was directed to provide all of the required materials for the prescription plan activities to Ms. Thomas by the end of the workday on May 18, 2001. Ms. Stern was advised that the failure to provide these materials within the time specified would be considered a deficiency in Category VII, which is the Professional Responsibilities category of TADS, and that she would be placed on a Category VII prescription. Several directives were included in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, and Ms. Stern was advised that she was cleared to return to work on May 17, 2001. May 22, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on May 22, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. Ms. Brown's overall impression was that Ms. Stern 's performance was worse than it was during the observation on March 16, 2001. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Teacher-Student Relationships and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern had failed to plan content and instructional activities to fill the classroom time allotted for the language arts block. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern took the students to the library at 10:30 a.m., but had completed her planned classroom activities at 9:55 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information in a meaningful or orderly manner. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that "[t]he sequence of the ideas did not flow into one another. The teacher asked questions and talked about whatever came to her mind, . . ." Ms. Brown also noted that there was no logical sequence of activities or framework established for the activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students the most important topics in the lesson or various applications of the topics introduced in the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students what they would be doing and did not relate the lesson to the students' experiences. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information using analysis or comparisons. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not ask open-ended questions, that she limited her questions to those that were simple and basic, and that she failed to challenge the students beyond one cognitive level. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern wasted 12 minutes of instruction time because of delays attributable to her repeatedly consulting her lesson plan during class and failing to use student helpers to pass out papers to the class, causing the students to wait without instruction until she passed out all of the papers. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice or noticed but chose not to re-direct a student who was making a paper airplane and rearranging his desk and the inside of his book bag for a period of 15 minutes and that Ms. Stern did not speak to a student who, for a period of 10 minutes, sat with her knees to her chest. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern thanked two students for no apparent reason. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice for two minutes that a student had slid his chair halfway across the room to place it beside that of another student and that, when she noticed, she merely told the student to sit down. Ms. Brown also noted that a student fell asleep at 9:45 a.m.; after about 10 minutes, Ms. Stern noticed the student, asked if he had stayed up late the night before, and left him to sleep until he awoke at 10:25 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern told the students that she "love[d] the way everyone is talking at once but it doesn't help" and that Ms. Stern continued to accept answers from students who called out, accepting more answers from these students than from the students who raised their hands. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with appropriate and correct verbal feedback regarding specific behaviors. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored two students who had their hands up for several minutes and accepted answers called out by other students. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern praised the class for working well together when the activity was an activity that each student worked on alone. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to give the students necessary background about their activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students the ideas or skills they were to learn from the two stories that she read to them, one about a bear with a toothache and one about an octopus; she merely told the students that she was going to read a book. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students how each activity related to the other activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not emphasize the important topics in the two stories or link the topics in the stories to future activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to sequence activities and failed to point out any logic to the order in which she presented components of the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern went from one activity to the next without having an apparent goal or order to the lesson. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide closure to the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not summarize, recapitulate, or apply any of the concepts in the lesson to any past or future lessons. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify the students' confusion. Ms. Brown relates in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern asked a student a question about an octopus; when the student answered, "The end of one of the octopus' tails is the mouth," Ms. Stern's only response was "OK. I don’t quite understand but OK." Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern passed out word cards to the students but never told them what to do with the cards. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.4. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to answer quietly the questions of individual students but would address the entire class when answering the questions of one or two students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern interrupted the entire class several times to answer the questions of two students, with the result that the class did not have enough quiet time to read and complete the activity. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on May 23, 2001, which was attended by Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern.8 During the conference, the deficiencies noted by Ms. Brown during her observation on May 22, 2001, were discussed, as well as the prescription plan activities that Ms. Stern was to complete to assist her in correcting the deficiencies. The timeline for completion of the prescription plan activities was also discussed, and it was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all the prescription plan activities by June 13, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers who were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. Ms. Stern's failure to complete the prescription plan activities included in the March 16, 2001, observation by the May 18, 2001, deadline was also discussed at the May 23, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. The Summary of the Conference-for- the-Record reflects that Ms. Brown went over with Ms. Stern the prescription plan activities that were not completed. As a result of her failure to complete the prescription plan activities, Ms. Thomas placed Ms. Stern on prescription for Category VII, the TADS Professional Responsibilities category. Ms. Stern had been advised at the May 17, 2001, Conference-for- the-Record at the Office of Professional Standards that a Category VII prescription would be the consequence if she failed to complete the prescription plan activities by the May 18, 2001, deadline. Ms. Stern ultimately completed the prescription plan activities in the March 16, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, although Ms. Brown had a difficult time determining that Ms. Stern completed all of the activities because the materials she submitted to Ms. Brown were very disorganized. Ms. Stern also turned in by the June 13, 2001, deadline all of the written materials required in the prescription plan activities assigned as a result of the May 22, 2001, observation. She did not, however, turn in her weekly lesson plans to Ms. Brown prior to implementing them, as she had been instructed; rather, she turned in her lesson plans late, and, near the end of the 2000-2001 school year, she did not turn in any lesson plans. September 13, 2001, Confirmatory Observation. In a letter to Ms. Stern dated April 26, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged having received a request for medical leave from Ms. Stern for the period extending from April 18, 2001, through May 4, 2001. In the letter, Dr. O'Donnell clarified for Ms. Stern the School Board's position with respect to the impact of her absences on the calculation of the days remaining in her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Dr. O'Donnell confirmed in the letter that Ms. Stern's probation period began on February 21, 2001, and that the prescription plan activities arising out of the March 16, 2001, observation were due to be completed on April 20, 2001. Dr. O'Donnell further advised Ms. Stern that the first 10 days of absence were included in the calculation of the 90 calendar days of the probation period and that, accordingly, the end of her probation period would be extended from May 31, 2001, to June 6, 2001, both of which dates fell within the final 10 days of the school year. Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged in the April 26, 2001, letter that, normally, no observations were performed during the first and final 10 days of a school year, but she advised Ms. Stern that her 90-day probation period must be concluded by June 16, 2001, because the Miami-Dade County public school system was to change from TADS to PACES for teacher performance evaluations, effective at the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. Accordingly, Dr. O'Donnell put Ms. Stern on notice in the April 26, 2001, letter that her confirmatory observation would take place after her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period ended on June 6, 2001. In a letter dated May 9, 2001, Ms. Falco, on behalf of the UTD, advised Dr. O'Donnell that, first, she had misstated the rule regarding the treatment of absences. According to Ms. Falco, the UTD Contract provided that the first 10 days of absence were not to be counted in calculating the 90 days. Nonetheless, Dr. O'Donnell's calculation of June 6, 2001, as the last day of Ms. Stern's probation period was correct. Ms. Falco also took issue with Dr. O'Donnell's decision to complete Ms. Stern's probationary period on June 16, 2001, and she advised Dr. O'Donnell that the then-current observation procedures prohibited any formal observations during the first and final 10 days of the school year and that the UTD would appeal any formal observation of Ms. Stern conducted during the final 10 days of the 2000-2001 school year. Finally, Ms. Falco advised Dr. O'Donnell that the Joint Committee had not yet determined how to treat teachers whose probation periods carried over into the 2001-2002 school year, when teachers were to be evaluated under PACES. The Joint Committee considered Ms. Stern's case individually and decided that Ms. Stern's confirmatory observation was to be conducted using TADS rather than PACES. Ms. Stern was not disadvantaged by having this observation conducted under TADS because it is easier for a teacher to get an acceptable evaluation under TADS than under PACES. In accordance with the position taken by the UTD and because Ms. Stern could not be observed during the first 10 days of the 2001-2002 school year, the end of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period was finally determined to be September 10, 2001. On September 13, 2001, Ms. Thomas conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance when she observed Ms. Stern teach a second grade math class from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. This observation was the required confirmatory observation conducted to determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the performance deficiencies identified in the February 5, 2001, March 16, 2001, and May 22, 2001, observations. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report in which she reported that she found Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in all five categories of TADS, Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas based her determination that Ms. Stern's classroom performance was unacceptable on several factors. During the September 13, 2001, observation, Ms. Thomas noted that Ms. Stern was not teaching the lesson identified on her lesson plan; one of the students repeatedly threw paper across the room into a garbage can without re-direction by Ms. Stern; students were talking to one another and moving around the room during the entire lesson, to the extent that it was difficult for Ms. Thomas to hear Ms. Stern; Ms. Stern did not remind students who were misbehaving of the class rules; Ms. Stern appeared not to notice a student crawling around on the floor; Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, but she did not call on the students who did so; and Ms. Stern had only two grades for the students in her grade book at a point in the school year when she should have had two grades listed for each student for each week of school in each the five subjects she taught in her second grade class, or over 40 grades. Recommendation for termination. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas notified Ms. Stern that she had failed to comply with the Category VII prescription imposed on May 23, 2001, because she had failed to turn in any lesson plans during the first weeks of the 2001-2002 school year. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas also presented to Ms. Stern for her signature a form that Ms. Thomas intended to submit to Dr. George M. Koonce, Regional Superintendent, containing Ms. Thomas's recommendation that Ms. Stern's employment contract be terminated because she had not satisfactorily corrected the noted performance deficiencies within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Ms. Stern refused to sign the form to acknowledge that she was aware of the recommendation. Dr. Koonce indicated his approval of Ms. Thomas's recommendation and forwarded it to the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel and Management Services, who, in turn, forwarded the recommendation to the Superintendent of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. In a letter dated October 1, 2001, the Superintendent notified Ms. Stern that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated at its October 24, 2001, meeting. Ms. Stern timely contested the recommendation, and this administrative proceeding commenced. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Stern failed to correct the deficiencies identified in her classroom performance within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, that School Board personnel adhered to the applicable evaluation procedures in assessing Ms. Stern's teaching performance and in reaching the decision to terminate her for unsatisfactory teaching performance, and that the School Board adhered to all statutory timeframes. Throughout the duration of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown offered Ms. Stern assistance to help her correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, although Ms. Stern completed many of the prescription plan activities identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001, she was unable or unwilling to implement in the classroom the techniques and lessons included in the prescription plan activities and failed to correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. In her testimony, Ms. Stern did not dispute any of the facts included by Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the formal observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001. Rather, Ms. Stern presented in her testimony justifications for and explanations of her classroom performance during the formal observations. This testimony has been considered and found insufficient to rebut the evidence of unsatisfactory performance presented by the School Board: Ms. Stern's second grade class was composed of students of varying abilities and ethnic backgrounds, but so were all of the second grade classes at Campbell Drive Elementary. Ms. Stern's classroom may not have provided an optimum environment for teaching, but the shortcomings of the physical and technological facilities provided to Ms. Stern do not justify the noted deficiencies in her teaching and classroom skills. Finally, Ms. Stern's laissez-faire attitude regarding the inappropriate behavior of her students is difficult to reconcile with her obligation as a teacher to maintain a classroom environment in which opportunities for learning are maximized.9
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order terminating the professional services contract of Joanne T. Stern. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2002.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Derek E. Andrews, should be terminated for his absence without leave from April 12, 2007, until the end of the 2006-2007 school year.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing in this matter the following Findings of Facts are made: Respondent, Derek E. Andrews, is a school teacher employed by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida. William Vogel is, and has been, Superintendent of Public Schools for the School District of Seminole County, Florida, for all times material to the occurrences relevant to this case. Pursuant to Section 4, Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Sections 1001.30, 1001.31, 1001.32, 1001.33, 1001.41, and 1001.42, Florida Statutes (2006), the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, is the governing board of the School District of Seminole County, Florida. The relationship of the parties is controlled by Florida Statutes, the collective bargaining agreement, and School Board policies. Respondent's supervising principal for the 2006-2007 school year was Dr. Shaune Storch. Respondent had been granted a leave of absence that expired on March 30, 2007. Respondent's leave for the period March 16, 2007, through March 30, 2007, was an extension of a previous leave as requested by Respondent. Subsequent to the expiration of Respondent's leave on March 30, 2007, Respondent's supervising principal attempted to contact Respondent regarding his intentions for the remainder of the 2006-2007 school year. Respondent did not meet with his supervising principal or otherwise respond to her letter of April 5, 2007. Article XVI, Section I.2. of the collective bargaining agreement, provides that any teacher who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of the absence and be subject to discharge and forfeiture of tenure and all other rights and privileges as provided by law. Respondent was absent without leave from April 2, 2007, through the end of the school year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent, Derek E. Andrews, guilty of the allegations stated in the Petition for Termination and that his employment be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 20th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Derek E. Andrews Post Office Box 62 Tangerine, Florida 32777-0062 Dr. Bill Vogel Superintendent of Schools Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Honorable Jeanine Blomberg Interim Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Board is responsible for the operation of the public schools within the Dade County School District. Teachers assigned to the various schools are recommended to the Superintendent for employment or contract renewal by their respective principals. The Superintendent, in turn, presents a recommendation regarding the teacher's employment to the Board. At all times material to the disputed facts of this case, Respondent was a teacher employed by the Board and assigned to a public school within the district. Teachers employed by the Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). This system records deficiencies which may have been observed during the evaluation review and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement. At all times material to this case, the TADS method was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. Respondent began employment with the Dade County public schools in September, 1961, and taught until February 13, 1963. She returned to teaching in March, 1982, and was employed pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was assigned to a second grade class at Ojus Elementary School (Ojus). Jeanne Friedman was the principal at Ojus and was primarily responsible for Respondent's TADS evaluation. At the conclusion of the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was given an annual evaluation. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in four of the seven areas of evaluation. Specifically, Respondent was found to be in need of remediation in the following categories: knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relations. A prescription was devised to assist Respondent improve in the areas deemed to be deficient, and she was informed that should she not improve in the areas noted by the end of the next year, that she would not be recommended for employment for the 1988-89 school year. The evaluation for the 1986-87 school year was predicated on observations which had been conducted on December 5, 1986, January 22, 1987, and March 2, 1987. On December 5, 1986, Jeanne Friedman conducted a TADS evaluation of the Respondent. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on December 11, 1986, to review the evaluation and to assist in the implementation of the prescription. On December 18, 1986, a conference for the record was held to address the Respondent's performance and her future employment status. At this meeting, Respondent was reminded of the suggestions given to correct the deficiencies noted in the evaluation conducted December 5, 1986. Those deficiencies were related to Respondent's preparation and planning. On January 22, 1987, Respondent was evaluated in follow-up to the December review. This observation was discussed with the Respondent on January 23, 1987. Respondent's prescription for the deficiencies noted in this evaluation required corrections to be implemented by February 2, 1987. The deficiencies were in the area of preparation and planning. On March 2, 1987, Respondent was evaluated by Jeanne Friedman and Emilio Fox. The evaluations were performed during the same class period, language arts, but the evaluators did not communicate with one another nor compare their notes regarding Respondent's performance. Both evaluators found the Respondent to be deficient in three of the areas of evaluation: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had failed to follow the lesson plan book for the entire class time, had failed to plan the activity which was conducted, wrote several erroneous items on the class board, and did not explain the nature of the lesson to the class. Several of Respondent's errors were brought to her attention by the students (second graders). Margaret Roderick and Leeomia Kelly evaluated Respondent on April 27, 1987. These TADS assessments found Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On May 29, 1987, a conference for the record was held regarding Respondent's poor performance year. At that time, Respondent was advised that if she failed to remediate the areas noted to be deficient by the end of the 1987-88 school year, she would not be recommended for continued employment. At her request, Respondent was assigned to a kindergarten class at Ojus for the 1987-88 school year. Approximately 30 students were initially enrolled in Respondent's section. A second kindergarten section was taught by Ms. Kramer. A TADS evaluation conducted by Leeomia Kelly on September 17, 1987, found Respondent to be acceptable in all categories reviewed. After this evaluation, several parents wrote to Ms. Friedman asking that their children be moved from Respondent's class to Ms. Kramer's section. The number of students enrolled in Respondent's class dropped to approximately 23. On October 22, 1987, Jeanne Friedman conducted an observation of the Respondent's class. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on October 23, 1987, to go over the prescription for improvement and outlined a time deadline for each suggested resource. A second evaluation conducted on November 30, 1987, also found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. On December 11, 1987, a conference for the record was conducted to review Respondent's performance. Respondent was reminded that a failure to correct deficient areas would result in termination of employment. Doretha Mingo and Leeomia Kelly conducted evaluations of Respondent on March 1, 1988. These evaluators found Respondent deficient in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On March 9, 1988, a conference for the record was held to summarize Respondent's work performance. At that time Respondent was given an annual evaluation which found her to be unacceptable in the following areas of performance: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher- student relationships. Respondent was notified at this conference that the principal would be recommending nonrenewal of the employment contract. Respondent was observed on April 13, 1988, by Ms. Friedman and Michael Conte. Both evaluators found Respondent to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction. In each of the TADS reviews given to Respondent, conclusions of deficiency were based upon objective observations made during the class period. For example, students found to be off task were observed to be disregarding Respondent's instructions and findings of inadequate planning were based upon inadequacies found in Respondent's plan book (not describing the lesson taught or incompletely stating the subject matter). In each instance, Respondent was given a prescription as to how to correct the noted deficiency. Respondent was given copies of the evaluations at the time they were reviewed with her. Further, Respondent was given copies of the memoranda kept regarding the conferences for the record. Resources were offered to Respondent to assist her to make the corrections required. On April 25, 1988, Respondent was notified that the subject of her continued employment would be raised at the Board meeting to be conducted April 27, 1988. Respondent was advised that the Superintendent intended to recommend nonrenewal of Respondent's contract which, if accepted, would preclude future employment. This letter was written by Patrick Gray, Executive Assistant Superintendent. The Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and acted to withhold a contract from Respondent for the 1988-89 school year. On April 28, 1988, Patrick Gray wrote to Respondent to advise her of the Board's action. In each of the years for which she received unacceptable evaluations, Respondent's students performed satisfactorily on school-administered standardized tests. Such tests were not, however, gauged to measure the subject matter which Respondent had been responsible for teaching in those years. During the 1987-88 school year Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies in performance which had been identified during the 1986-87 school year. Respondent repeatedly failed to perform the duties which were expected of her despite many attempts to assist her with any remediation needed. Further, by her failure to remediate in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction, Respondent failed to communicate with her students to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order sustaining the decision to terminate Respondent's employment by the nonrenewal of her contract. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 20th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2798 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. The first 3 sentences of paragraph 4 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 5 through 12 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 13 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 14 through 19 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "sometime in February, 1988," and the following qualification, paragraph 20 is accepted. The opinions expressed by the parents were based upon the observations made and not necessarily the comment of their children. The parents drew the conclusions based upon their observation but no conclusion is reached by the undersigned as to the accuracy of those conclusions. It will suffice for the purposes herein that the-parents believed their conclusions to be correct. No time was clearly established for the parental comments regarding Respondent's ability or performance. Paragraph 21 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 22, with the following qualification, it is accepted. The opinion expressed by Conte that students "were not comprehending what they were doing or what they were supposed to be doing ..." Such comments have not been considered as Mr. Cote's ability to read the minds of the children. Rather, such comments have been read to more accurately mean: based upon his experience and expertise, "the students did not appear to comprehend, etc." The last sentence of paragraph 22 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraphs 26 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, conclusions of law or comment not appropriate for a finding of fact. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AS SET FORTH IN THE AMENDED RECOMMENDED ORDER (HAVING PRESUMED IT SUPERSEDED THE EARLIER FILED RECOMMENDED ORDER): Paragraph 1 is accepted as to Respondent's age but the balance is rejected as unsupported by the record. The weight of the evidence established Respondent has not taught for 32 years. She has been a teacher by profession that long but not working all that time. Paragraphs 2-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument or a conclusion of law not accurate under the facts of this case. Paragraph 6 is accepted to the extent the subject matter is qualified and addressed in finding of fact paragraph 22, otherwise is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez 2780 Galloway Road Superintendent Miami, Florida 33165 School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue William DuFresne Miami, Florida 33132 DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
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.
